Fuel: Red Diesel

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they are seeking to renew the current European Union derogation to enable motor pleasure boats to continue to run on red diesel.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the derogation from the EU energy products directive, allowing the use in private pleasure craft of rebated gas oil or red diesel, is due to expire at the end of this year. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Statement in March that the UK would apply formally to the European Commission for renewal. This decision is based on the evidence set out in a partial regulatory impact assessment published at the Budget of the likely effect on the UK if the derogation were to end.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very detailed Answer, but surely those who can afford a half-million-pound gin palace to go across the Channel and fill up with 3,000 gallons of diesel—I mean, 3,000 litres, although it does not make much difference—can afford to pay the same rate of duty as motorists do in this country. Does my noble friend also accept that it is nothing to do with the boat-building industry in this country deserving help? The French boat-building industry is very much bigger and, in France, if you have a pleasure boat, you have to pay the full duty on all the fuel that you put in. Is my noble friend prepared, even at this late stage, to look at the application to the Commission again?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the application has gone in, and I do not think that it is reversible. I am not sure that the term "gin palace" is actually defined in the directive. The RIA sets out the rationale behind the decision, which relates to the cost to boat owners not only of fuel but of putting in new tanks—because they would potentially have two sources of fuel. There is also the impact on fuel suppliers and small businesses and the cost of compliance. This is not just about very rich people who have very big boats. There are around 349,000 boats in the UK, and many of those are owned by middle-income families and, in the inland waterways network, families generally on less than average income.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the decision eventually be taken by qualified majority voting or by unanimity? Do Her Majesty's Government honestly think in their heart that the British people in 1975 would have voted to stay in what they were assured was merely a common market if they were going to be subjected to this sort of nonsensical control from Brussels—and much more like it—for many years to come?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the noble Lord does not disappoint me with his question. Decisions on this require unanimity, and the provisions that we are dealing with relate to the creation of a single market under Article 93, as I am sure the noble Lord knows well, which is about partial harmonisation of indirect tax. It seems entirely reasonable that, if we sign up to the rules, we should have to go where they lead us.

Lord Newby: My Lords, following the thrust of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which other member states have a derogation among the great sea-going nations of Europe? The Minister referred to the costs to the owners of gin palaces or beer longboats or narrow boats of following the directive. Can he also say something about the environmental benefits that would accrue if people using motorboats paid a reasonable amount of duty on their fuel?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, four countries, including Ireland, have sought continuance of the derogation. I have forgotten the names of two of them, but I will write to the noble Lord on that matter.
	The environmental issues do not necessarily all point in one direction. Part of the issue is that if the availability of rebated oils was to be abrogated, there would be a risk of a move toward greater use of petrol engines, particularly on some smaller boats. There is an issue about the availability of fuelling points, because new investment would be needed if two sources of fuel were going to be provided. If there were fewer of those points, there could be difficulties with longer journeys and more fuel being carried, with all the implications associated with that. The environmental issues do not all point in the same way. On the wider issues of transport taxation and environmental issues, this Government have a fine track record.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that his argument about 340,000 small boat owners does not really wash, bearing in mind that there are millions of poor people driving motor cars who are paying 60p in every litre in taxation? Is the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, not right to say that, if the British people had understood exactly how far the European Union now comes into the making of laws in this country they certainly would not have voted yes in 1975? If there were a referendum today, I feel sure that they would vote to come out.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I simply do not agree with that last assertion. On the noble Lord's first point about the relative impact of taxation, we have to look at where we are and where we want to move forward to. That is why it is appropriate that we press for the derogation.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister quantify for me the benefit received by the people to whom he referred on the canals, in their narrow boats, as opposed to the owners of much larger and more expensive craft?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I have a breakdown by size of the number of boats owned in the UK. A very small proportion of those are the bigger boats at the higher end to which I think my noble friend Lord Berkeley was referring. The boats in the inland waterways, in particular, are in a sense less able to deal with any change in the current rules. The big boats to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley was referring have the ability to nip across to the Channel Islands or to France to refuel there, if the rebated oils are not available to them.

Freedom of Information

Viscount Falkland: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proportion of inquiries to government departments under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are made by Members of the Houses of Parliament.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Freedom of Information Act requires each case to be assessed on its individual merits and departments do not collect information on who is making requests, including Members of Parliament. The quarterly statistical reports published by my department contain information on the implementation of the freedom of information in central government, including the number of requests received, the timeliness of responses and the outcomes of requests.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. There has been some talk in the press and the media of the Government receiving an increasing number of questions and inquiries that are described in the language of government departments as either "frivolous" or even "vexatious". Will she confirm that? Should the Government not find a way of reducing the number of such inquiries because they are a pity in the context of the proper working of the legislation? Is there not a way of encouraging people who want to ask questions of government to use their elected representatives more or even Members of your Lordships' House, who are easily accessible, so that we may make the legislation work better and more quickly to the benefit of all those concerned?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we certainly have some concerns about vexatious and frivolous requests, as the noble Viscount rightly indicated. We have been working with the Information Commissioner to ensure that we are all clear that it is inappropriate and a waste of time to deal with some requests. As for other ways in which members of the public could get information, we have made it clear that we want the process to be blind about who is making the request and that we should respond properly and appropriately to whomever is making it.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, are Questions for Written Answer and oral Questions in both Houses treated equally with questions asked by members of the public under the Freedom of Information Act?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we were mindful of the regime for parliamentary Questions when we designed the regime for members of the public. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we have tried to make sure that they fit together appropriately.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, it is my understanding that problematic requests for information are referred to a clearing house run by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, where specialist lawyers vet them and draft responses. What proportion of requests for information from Members of Parliament is referred to the so-called clearing house? Is there any policy of automatic referral of such requests to that office?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is no process of automatic referral. As I have already indicated, we do not keep statistics on who is making the requests. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that, because of self-identification of the media requesters, we know that, of the 2,000 cases referred to the clearing house by last year, about 830—42 per cent—had come from journalists and 130—7 per cent—had come from Members of Parliament.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most efficient ways for departments to deal with requests from the general public is to have published the information previously? Will she encourage government departments and other public bodies to be pre-emptive in publishing the information, because that is by far the best way of dealing with the problem?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, all departments have policies and strategies to make sure that they put in the public domain as much information as possible. That is absolutely right and proper.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, there appears to be a considerable traffic jam in the Information Commissioner's dealing with applications that have been referred to him. Is there any possibility of the Government providing assistance to him to enable the applications to be dealt with more quickly?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Information Commissioner will receive an additional £500,000 in the financial year 2006–07 that, we hope, will provide him with the additional resources. That has been carefully worked out with the commissioner, and we believe that he will be able to make significant progress. Indeed, he is doing so.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, are not quite a number of the applications made by journalists looking for stories on a slow news day? Given that, sometimes, papers are released which were shown to Ministers at the time, would it not be appropriate that they are made more widely available so that journalists are not just sitting on information that is not known to the rest of the public and perhaps presenting it selectively? Has the Minister given thought to that and to the possibility of making a charge where commercial organisations are concerned?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have already indicated that we would keep the fees regime under review, although no decisions have been made on that at present. Most departments immediately put on the website any information that they provide to journalists so that it is available to the wider public and to other journalists.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, what are the rules for refusing to answer questions requested under the Freedom of Information Act on the ground of cost? Are they the same as for Written Parliamentary Questions in this House?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have provided details on that. We have tried to ensure that, where there is clearly going to be huge work involved, we indicate that a cost is payable. The noble Viscount will know that we keep the matter under review. I shall write to him with any further details available.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a red letter day, in that I agreed with every word of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth? The Minister did not deal specifically with his point that information that is available to journalists ought to be more widely available because they are hanging on to it. We see that in Scotland as well, where almost all the requests have come from one newspaper and one journalist, who is hanging on to that information, which everyone should know about.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I found myself doing that occasionally when we discussed the Higher Education Act. I thought that I had answered the question when I said that we published on the website the information that has been made available to journalists so that it is fully in the public domain.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I made a submission to the Information Commissioner in April 2005 and am still awaiting a substantial answer. Is there a special slow track for parliamentarians?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is not. If the noble Lord wishes, I shall look into that.

Armed Forces: Nuclear Deterrence

The Earl of Dundee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to develop a programme of nuclear deterrence in partnership with France.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the United Kingdom maintains an independent minimum nuclear deterrent which is assigned to NATO. That remains our policy. However, the United Kingdom and France continue to work together in other defence areas to strengthen the EU's capabilities.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Whether or not there is joint nuclear deterrence at some date, he may accept that British-French co-operation and partnership can greatly assist Europe, NATO and international defence. What plans do the Government now have to build up this relationship following the recent aircraft carrier agreement with France?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, France is our No. 1 defence partner in Europe, and worldwide it is second only to the United States. The forthcoming UK-French summit on 9 June will be an opportunity to build that partnership further. Together we have a key role to play in ensuring the success of NATO and EU efforts to bring stability to Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, the Congo and Darfur. In Africa, particularly, the United Kingdom and France are looking to further enhance training support for the African Union and other regional security organisations. Together we are pursuing a number of initiatives to improve European capabilities, including some through the European Defence Agency. A good example is the recent initiative to improve strategic airlift capability for the benefit of the EU and NATO.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the nuclear weapon states continue to develop and improve their own nuclear weapons, it greatly diminishes the authority of their objection to other states proliferating nuclear weapons?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I regret to disagree with my noble and learned friend. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has specified some states as nuclear powers, and those states will remain nuclear powers. Our requirement in the international community is that those who have signed that treaty stick to their word and that we stick to ours.

Lord Garden: My Lords, when officials from Britain and France meet to talk about their strategy for security, they of course cover nuclear issues. Have Her Majesty's Government explored the change in French strategy announced by President Chirac on 19 January, when he warned that,
	"countries which support terrorism or desire weapons of mass destruction are at risk of a nuclear attack"?
	Do Her Majesty's Government believe that such a policy is permissible under the NPT?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is right to say that the issues are discussed bilaterally. A number of thoughts were advanced by President Chirac in that speech. As I know the noble Lord is aware, we have long taken the view that the whole of our nuclear strategy is operated through NATO conventions and in adherence with international law as operated through NATO. That is still the way in which we prefer to ensure our collaboration with other nations.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although our independent nuclear deterrent is generally assigned to NATO, it is available for our own purposes when our supreme national interest so requires? Does he therefore not agree that, in that circumstance, a joint operation with the French would not be appropriate?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is absolutely right to say that our nuclear umbrella is a sovereign prerogative and we decide, even in the context of NATO, whether there should be any deployment of nuclear weapons. I repeat: the alliance has overseen the general defence of the free world, and that remains the preferred arrangement.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I follow the question from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne: if co-operation with the French meant that they had a veto over the British nuclear deterrent, surely that would be absolutely disastrous. Indeed, you could argue that it would no longer be a deterrent.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, that was one of the most imaginative thoughts that I have heard expressed in your Lordships' House for quite a while. I do not know of any plan for the French to have a veto over the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent, and perhaps I might add that President Chirac has not offered us a veto over his.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, do not the American Government have an effective veto over our using our nuclear deterrent on our own?

Lord Triesman: No, my Lords. The purchase of equipment from the United States provides us with the capability of launch and the ability to make our own decisions, but they are our decisions. There is no evidence whatever that the United States has ever sought to influence them.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I want to clarify the Minister's answer. An Anglo-French commission on nuclear policy was set up some years ago, I think, at St Malo or before that summit. It would be interesting to know what conclusions have been reached about increased military nuclear co-operation. Is the French force de frappe, or independent deterrent, at the service of NATO, as well as ours; is it at the service of the common foreign and security policy; is it simply at the service of France—or what?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, there was a good deal more co-operation in the mid-1990s. That is reflected in the number of major meetings, including St Malo. The overall extent of the co-operative arrangement has probably diminished somewhat, as France has decided that it wishes to control its position fully and exclusively. The French position, as I understand it, is that their nuclear deterrent remains solely theirs and has nothing to do with NATO.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the history of the past 60 years suggests that, once a country has nuclear weapons, it can never actually use them and that therefore in effect they have been God's gift to peace between nuclear powers?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the entire concept of a nuclear arsenal was that it should act as a deterrent. That implies that those who have any aggressive view towards a country such as ours must expect that if they acted in extremis we would respond in extremis. However, in general, the proposition is that everyone is deterred from taking that final step. Plainly, it has provided a security umbrella of very great importance.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I refer to the Minister's answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Those who sign the nuclear proliferation treaty should hold to their agreement, but what is the position of countries such as Israel that have nuclear weapons but have not signed that proliferation treaty? Is that not a deterrent to signing the treaty in the first place?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, happily. The terms of the treaty are binding in every respect on those who have signed it. It would be better if everyone signed it, and those who move outside the treaty probably do considerable harm to the peace and security arrangements of their region.

Schools: Targets and Testing

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to change the current system of targets and testing applied to schools.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we have no such plans.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat negative reply. Is he aware that an increasing number of people in the education world—teachers, head teachers, educational researchers and even Ofsted—are questioning whether we in the UK do not have too heavy a regime of examinations and testing for our young people? A recent report, for example, said:
	"Pressures of testing and league tables",
	are now having,
	"a negative impact on the processes of teaching and learning and the well being of teachers and their pupils".
	Why cannot we in this country be more like Finland? Besides winning the Eurovision Song Contest, it tops the PISA international league tables in education. It concentrates on training teachers well and then trusts them as professionals to do their job, to assess their pupils and to examine them at the end of their time. Can we not trust the professionals more in this country?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am sure that we have a great deal to learn from Finland. However, we can also be proud of what we have achieved in this country, which is steadily rising school performance in the past 10 years under the regime that we have put in place. The noble Baroness mentioned Ofsted. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools said in his last annual report:
	"Test and examination data enable us to track the progress made by every pupil in the maintained school system and can alert us to pupils, groups of pupils, or schools which do not seem to be making the progress we might have expected".
	That is very much the Government's view too.

Baroness Prosser: My Lords, my children were but three of the many thousands of young people who attended state comprehensive schools in inner-city areas during the 1960s and 1970s, a time when there was anything but transparency about the aims and objectives of the education process, and a time when standards were unavailable—

Noble Lords: Question!

Baroness Prosser: A question is coming, my Lords, if you will have just a little patience.
	It was a time when no information on standards was available. Will my noble friend think carefully before withdrawing the current arrangements? They at least provide us with a system to ensure that information on what is going on in one school as against another is available to parents so that proper choices can be made.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right: parents should have a right to that information, and the Government have no intention of denying them that right. According to the standardised test data that are available to all parents, each year since 1997 more than 100,000 11 year-olds have reached the standard expected of their age in the basics of literacy. We should take pride in that result and not tear up the system that has enabled it to take place.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although targets and testing in schools are, of course, necessary to maintain accountability, requiring a teacher to tick 117 boxes in assessing a five year-old is excessive bureaucracy and of little benefit to early-years learning? Does he accept that, where there is a lot of targeting, too often the focus is on outcomes rather than on core objectives?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we must minimise bureaucracy in any way that we can. I cannot speak for all 117 of those boxes. I will look at them to see whether they will be reduced in any way.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the Lib Dems' turn.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, is the Minister concerned about Ofsted's recent finding that under the numeracy strategy there is far too much teaching to the test in maths, which is having a deleterious effect on teaching in our schools? Is he aware that the policy on these Benches is not to have no testing but to have a more sensible amount of testing?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, Ofsted did not say that that was having a deleterious impact. It noted that, in fact, standards in numeracy were improving in primary schools. When you have tests, teachers will teach to them, and to my mind that is a jolly good thing.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to increase the range and quality of vocational education in schools, so that pupils can be tested against subjects that they are really interested in?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are embarking on a big reform of vocational education to introduce specialised vocational diplomas nationwide. The first four of those diplomas will be available in two years' time. In the Education and Inspections Bill, which will soon be before your Lordships, there will be a statutory entitlement to vocational education available to every pupil in the country.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, do the Government understand that a growing number of us have lost the trust in the professionals advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, given that an unacceptably large proportion of our children are leaving school functionally illiterate and innumerate? Should not the Government's first priority therefore be to ensure that all children, unless they have severe learning disabilities, can read, write, add up, subtract and divide by the time they are, shall we say, nine?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, our teachers do a fantastic job in our schools, but there is no conflict between having confidence in the teaching profession and expecting full transparency in tests and examination results. The Government believe that it is possible to have the best of both those worlds.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, does the Minister consider that examinations marked by computer are capable of providing the sensitive and searching evaluation of the ability of pupils that we should be able to expect from the public examination system?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, that depends on the competence of the computers.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, does the Minister have any information on a project to compare educational achievements in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the PISA studies and other studies seek to produce such comparative data between the various parts of the United Kingdom. We keep these matters under close review.

Scotland (Petitions for a Referendum on Independence) Bill [HL]

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for electors in Scotland to petition the House of Commons for a referendum on whether Scotland should withdraw from the United Kingdom, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Conventions: Joint Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. On 25 April the House agreed to establish a Joint Committee on Conventions with the terms of reference that were on the Order Paper that day. The House of Commons endorsed the same terms of reference on 17 May. This Motion sets out the membership and powers of the Joint Committee; it also sets a time for the first meeting. The membership of the Joint Committee has been proposed by the Committee of Selection which met to discuss this matter on 9 May. The Committee of Selection was unanimous in recommending the names on the Order Paper today.
	Moved, That the Commons message of 17 May be now considered, and that a Committee of 11 Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons;
	V. Bledisloe L. Carter L. Cunningham of Felling L. Elton L. Fraser of Carmyllie L. Higgins L. McNally B. Symons of Vernham Dean L. Tomlinson L. Tyler L. Wright of Richmond;
	That the committee have power to agree with the committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That the committee do report by 21 July 2006;
	And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons tomorrow at 10 am.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out "L. McNally".

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, this Motion gives me the opportunity to point out briefly that, out of the 179 noble Lords who voted for the Motion on 25 April, five—almost half of those proposed—are going to be members of the Joint Committee. Of the 95 who voted against the Motion, none will be given places on the committee. I do not wish to expand on this; I am just mentioning it as a matter of interest to show the way in which the wind is blowing.
	The second reason why I find this Motion useful is that it presents another opportunity to express my feeling that the appointment of a Joint Committee to look into the conventions of this House is out of place and odious. I do not think that one can be blamed for repeating those sentiments again and again. I fear, and the Government must hope, that the committee's study of the conventions will somehow help them on a further step down the road to the reduction of your Lordships' House to the status of a laundry. I do not say that a laundry is not needed to tidy up the legislation which comes before us in such bulk, but the idea that we should simply wash and tidy up and iron the laundry and then deliver it again to its source seems unacceptable.
	I just wish to say a word about the respect and regard in which we who belong to political parties—I exclude those who have the distinction, and I mean "distinction", of being Cross-Benchers—all hold those who sit in front of us on the Front Benches. But there are moments when that respect begins to wither slightly, and there is a degree of concern and even alarm when one is confronted with the spectacle of the Front Benches of opposition parties combining to give aid and comfort to the Government in getting out of difficulties which are entirely of their own creation.
	I know that your Lordships do not wish to listen to a long speech from me—I am very glad to have the noble Lord's agreement to that—but I turn to my amendment. I dismiss at once any notion that may be abroad that it has a content of hostility towards the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I have spoken to him and have explained my reasons for putting the amendment down. I have also ventured to express, absolutely genuinely, my regard and admiration for him. On 25 April he made a most admirable speech. There were two things to which I particularly call your Lordships' attention which I regard as a message that should be at the forefront of the Government's mind at all times. He said:
	"We must split off our task as parliamentarians putting in place a Parliament that can keep an over-powerful executive"—
	I repeat: can keep an over-powerful executive—
	"in place and the desire of some on those Benches to make life easy for the government Chief Whip of the day".
	It could not have been put better. At the end of the same column, the noble Lord went on to say—I was so pleased to hear this:
	"I am determined that it should still retain the right to say no. Unless it retains that right, we are on our way to a unicameral Parliament, with a debating Chamber at this end, and with that would come all threats of the elective dictatorship which Lord Hailsham warned",
	of some years ago. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord on that. I hope he will forgive me if I say that, with a rather abrupt change of gear, he reached a somewhat eccentric conclusion, when he said:
	"We on these Benches will enter into these discussions with good will, generosity of spirit and a determination to succeed".—[Official Report, 25/04/06; cols. 78-79.]
	Those words, too, would have been welcome had there been the slightest sign of them on this topic coming from a government source. They never have.
	I do not wish to dwell on my impartiality in these matters, from a party point of view, but had the noble Lord, Lord Cope, my friend of long-standing, been named as a member of this committee, I would certainly have included him in my amendment today. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, he made an admirable speech. He gave a serious warning that members of the committee would need something—perhaps short of the wisdom of Solomon, but certainly miraculous powers—to sort out this difficulty. My noble friend perhaps took too much comfort from the weasel words in the terms of reference, which were,
	"to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions".
	It is hard to believe that a committee of 24 or 25 people will sit down to the serious consideration of merely codifying them. It is beyond human nature that they should be expected to confine themselves to such limits. Of course, they will do nothing of the kind.
	My noble friend might also have given a thought to something that I have mentioned before. These conventions are House of Lords conventions. One wonders, even if it is not strictly speaking a convention that one House does not interfere in the affairs and rights of another, whether good manners and common courtesy might have prevented this unfortunate intrusion on this occasion. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out "L. McNally".—(Lord Peyton of Yeovil.)

Lord McNally: My Lords, when I first saw this on the Order Paper, my eyes went to the two lines below, and I thought that it applied to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. I have looked and listened to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, whom I always enjoy when he is usually attacking a feckless Minister or a malfunctioning department. To suddenly find myself subject to quite interesting readings from my collected speeches, I can only bring to mind the immortal words of the late Kenneth Williams: "Infamy, infamy, he's got it in for me". The noble Lord's amendment gives me the opportunity to explain and perhaps for Ministers to listen to why I am on the committee.
	When, over six months ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, proposed the setting-up of this committee, I resisted the Liberal Democrats' making nominations. It came shortly after one of those infamous Downing Street briefings where we were told that the Prime Minister was finally exasperated with the House of Lords and was going to clip our wings. I said then that we were not going take part in a wing-clipping exercise, and that we could only look at the conventions in parallel with issues such as powers and composition.
	Two or three months ago, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke to me and reported a Pauline conversion by the Prime Minister to House of Lords reform, and that the noble and learned Lord was going to set up a committee to look for a broad consensus between the major political parties. I reported this to my colleagues at both ends of the House, and some of them expressed great scepticism about the Government's intentions. I, being younger, more idealistic and perhaps more naive, said that we should trust them at their word. I forcefully argued that, since those two committees now existed and that the cause of Lords reform was being championed by no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself, it was worth taking the risk to see whether the prospects for Lords reform existed. So this committee went on the Order Paper.
	At four o'clock this afternoon, we would have been having the first meeting of the Lord Chancellor's committee—except that, last Thursday, I got a letter from a private secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department telling me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had been removed from all matters concerning Lords reform. It said that the new Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Jack Straw, had decided to stand down the Lord Chancellor's committee, and would consult individuals on the wider issue of reform from time to time, as needed. When I reported this to my colleagues, a number resisted saying "I told you so", but they certainly looked as though they were thinking it.
	My reason for going on this committee, and the Lord Chancellor's committee, was that we can proceed only by looking at a complete package. Mr Straw has since modified his comments about the Lord Chancellor's committee, saying that he will bring it together at a suitable time. But both Houses deserve to see the wider package. Given our experience so far, the Prime Minister seems to take an interest in Lords reform only when he is getting his feet singed with problems elsewhere. He takes the matter away from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who had done a great deal of preparatory work, and hands it to Mr Jack Straw, whose record on constitutional reform does not put him in the ranks of radical reformers. That starts this process off on a very bad foot. When you add the fact that we are in the twilight of the Blair years—so this whole process might be interrupted by a change in head of government—I share some of the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
	However, we are where we are. The wonderful briefings that we get tell us that my good and old friend the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, might chair the committee. Again, with the greatest of charity, his record as a constitutional reformer has not set radicals' hearts beating, but perhaps Pauline conversions are spreading like bird flu through the Government. Mr Straw and the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, might take this issue and move it forward—who knows? That is why my name is on the list. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I am glad he heard what I said two weeks ago. I believe that. I have great determination to protect this House and perhaps one thing the Joint Committee can do is to cure some of the great misunderstandings about the work of this House just a few hundred yards down the corridor. In all parties, we have an education to do with our colleagues in the Commons about how this place could be reformed, while leaving the supremacy of the House of Commons, which so many of us believe in.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is clear to me that my noble friend Lord Peyton did not mean any ill will to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, did not quite say it, but I expect that he will not support my noble friend's amendment this afternoon, unless he has changed his mind about sitting on the committee. My noble friend also said that it was another opportunity to air this issue. He is right to have taken that opportunity because almost as every week goes by, there is a new piece of information— a new nugget written in the newspapers—about what the Government have planned for this House. That raises, quite rightly, enormous concerns, not only on the combined Benches of opposition, but right round the House.
	First, those concerns are centred on what this process is about. You had only to read the Guardian newspaper on Saturday to see a headline which read:
	"Blair turns to Cunningham in drive to curb Lords powers".
	That is the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. I do not associate him at all with that piece of paper, but somebody had briefed the journalist. It is hardly surprising that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my colleagues behind me, are so deeply suspicious of this process. It looks as though it is intended and designed purely to curb the powers of this House. Since the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, is in his place, I hope that he will take the opportunity when he chairs this committee—as I very much hope that he does—to look at strengthening, not just curbing, the powers of this House.
	My second concern is about who is, overall, in control. Since 1997, this role has been carried out by the Lord Chancellor—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton. At the latest reshuffle, only a few weeks ago, that role was given to the leader of another place, Mr Jack Straw. It is the first time that I can think of where responsibility for the future of this House resides not here but in another place. I cannot believe that that is the best way to create confidence in this process.
	My third concern is that this process is being driven to a conclusion as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us that we were originally approached about this Joint Committee before Christmas. Then it seemed perfectly reasonable that it should report by the Summer Recess. Here we are now, in the week of the Whitsun Recess. The committee has yet to meet, yet it is being asked to report by 21 July. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, if she is going to reply, will confirm that if any request is made by the committee to extend that deadline, it will be agreed to without further discussion. I cannot see how it can not only read itself into the background of this issue—I echo what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about educating Members of another place about what goes on in this House—but decide who the witnesses will be, take witness statements and interrogate those witnesses before reporting back to the Houses.
	Perhaps the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees can also tell me about the committee's meeting. The Motion states that it is meeting tomorrow at 10 am. Does that mean that all the proposed members have been told about the meeting and where the committee is meeting? Is that usual practice or is this new?

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I had the honour to be a member of the Speakership committee—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this side! I want to agree with what has already been said. However, I want to ask the Chairman of Committees a question on the chairmanship of the committee. Is it within the Government's gift to decide who the chairman should be; or is it the committee which should decide; or is it the usual channels who should come to agreement about the chairmanship? It is important that the House should know the answer.
	Secondly, in relation to the involvement of noble Lords in the discussions, will they be invited to make submissions in the short time available between now and 21 July? If so, I believe that the number of representations will be very low. On a matter of such great importance, surely all noble Lords should be given the opportunity and the time to make representations. Furthermore, perhaps we can have a note of the discussions of the meeting which will take place at 10 am tomorrow. That might give us guidance on how wide the committee intends to spread its wings in relation to the conventions of this House, which, like the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Peyton, I believe are a matter for this House. Once other people begin to decide what they are, we might all as well go home and save the taxpayer money.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it might help the House if I respond to the points made about the Guardian article and on timing. The idea that any Members who have been proposed for the committee either in this House or in another place will meet to discuss curbing the powers of the House of Lords is patently nonsensical. Furthermore, I found it hard to find anything in the Guardian article which was accurate.
	On the deadline, the House may recall that when we first debated the matter in this House, I said:
	"It would be up to the committee—having met and decided what it is going to look at—to come back to both Houses to seek an extension if it thinks the timescale is too short".—[Official Report, 25/4/06; col. 93.]
	My right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons said, when the matter was discussed in another place,
	"if the Committee comes to the view that it needs more time, we can return to the House to seek an extension—it will not be my intention to stand in the way of such a request from the Committee".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/06; col. 449.]
	The comments of both of us in that respect are clear.
	Finally, on choosing the chairman of the committee, if noble Lords look at the proposal on the Order Paper, they will see that the first item below the names reads:
	"That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman".
	It is for the committee to decide who chairs.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she explain the situation because some of us are a little puzzled? Does she accept that the deadline of 21 July is ludicrously short and why is she hiding behind the assertion that the committee can decide that it can have longer?
	The Government put the Motion on the Order Paper, but what is the hurry? Why was 21 July chosen in the first place? What agenda needs to be met?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we started negotiations on this matter last June. I have made it absolutely clear, as has my right honourable friend in another place, that there is a view that the timescale is too short. Given the delay—and there was a delay in the House of Commons—of course it is open to change the deadline. The deadline of 21 July has now been agreed by both Houses of Parliament in Motions, so we have to bring back another deadline. In my view, the best thing is for the committee to meet, agree what its work schedule will be and then say to us that it would like this matter to be referred to both Houses with the timetable that it would like to see. I am not trying to hide anything. My right honourable friend in another place and I have said that, given the time that this has taken to establish, there is clearly an issue with respect to the timetable. However, given that the Motions have gone through both Houses, it is far better for the committee to say what it thinks the timetable should be rather than that I should do so.

Noble Lords: Hear, Hear.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the committee will decide on its work programme.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I share the views of the noble Lord—

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—

Baroness Boothroyd: Intervention!

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am trying to ask the noble Baroness a question before she sits down.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have given way three times already.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Baroness spoke of a deadline. During the previous debate on this topic, almost every noble Lord who spoke said that it was open to the committee to put in an interim report. Upon advice received from a short distance to the noble Baroness's right, I said that the committee did not have to come back to the House, but could merely put in an interim report and get on with it later. Is the noble Baroness now saying that is wrong?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the advice I have always received—which is why I made the statement I did in the previous debate—was that we would have to return to both Houses.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Peyton when he moved this amendment. I, too, very much regret that the Government have embarked on this attempt to codify the practices of this House. I equally regret that, as many other noble Lords have said, the House of Commons—the other place—should have a role in deciding what happens to our conventions. Our conventions have been enshrined in tradition for a thousand years and, in my view, ought to remain like that.
	However, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees how his committee arrived at the list of names that is before your Lordships this afternoon. As I understand it, the committee received 11 nominations for 11 places, so there was not much competition. I regret that. As a matter of fact, I was hoping to be a member of this committee. Sadly, my name was not even considered by the noble Lord and his committee, and I regret that very much. I know that it is normally the practice for the Committee of Selection to consider only those names that are submitted through the usual channels. But I have a bit of news for your Lordships. I understand that it is open to any noble Lord to make a proposal to the Committee of Selection, and, in future, armed with that knowledge, I am going to make lots of recommendations to the noble Lord, which I hope he will take fully into account in his committee. The fact of the matter is that, at the moment, the Committee of Selection is a creature of the usual channels. The establishment has decided upon these names, not your Lordships and I think we should agree with my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I would like to support the amendment put forward by my noble friend. Like him, I am second to none in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord McNally, not least for the splendid speech in which he vowed that he would not see any reduction in the powers of this House. However, it seems to me that my noble friend made one mistake when he said that we were being treated like a laundry. If my noble friend sent his shirts to such a laundry, they would come back dirty. It would not even have had time to dry them, let alone wash them properly.
	When the original Motion was put before the House, I asked the Leader of the House about the timetable. I think that was on around 25 April, about a month ago. I complained that there were only three months for the committee to carry out a complex and difficult task. One month has been spent getting to the point where the names of the Members of this House who should serve on the committee have come before us. Presumably, the remaining two months are to be spent dealing with these complex issues.
	My main concern, which the Leader of the House refuses to address, is why the 21 July deadline—the noble Baroness used the word "deadline" this afternoon—was imposed. Why is there a deadline? What is the agenda? I believe it is quite clear for all to see; it is to try somehow to contain the powers of this House before arguing for an elected membership of this House in order to advance the entirely dishonest and disreputable argument that, if Members were elected to this House, the powers of this House could be reduced or, indeed, maintained as they are. It is perfectly clear what is happening.
	We now learn that the Lord Chancellor, who has not stayed to hear the remainder of the debate—an initiative that he started—is no longer having meetings with the party leaders. We hear instead that the former Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, will have meetings from time to time with relevant people. What does "from time to time" mean? Which people will he meet, and as part of what process? Does "from time to time" fit in with the committee's leave to report from time to time, which is in the Motion?
	My third question, to which my noble friend has alluded, is how on earth a committee of more than 20 people can tackle these issues. If they all spoke for five minutes, that would take up most of the time available for one meeting. Members of the House of Commons—I plead guilty as a former Member of the House of Commons—are not as knowledgeable or as aware of the good work done in this place as they should be. The whole process of simply introducing them into our procedures and deciding how they will operate will take time.
	I regard the Motion as yet more contempt for the processes of this House. It is a wonder that the Government bother to lay Motions before the House at all, because the party leaders are talking behind the scenes about the future of this institution, and no party has a right to determine the future of this institution. The issues at stake are important, and are worthy of wider consideration and public debate. This timetable and way of proceeding make a farce of it all.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have two brief points to make. I shall not repeat the debate that was held some little time ago when the House took this decision, but will instead respond to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, whose point I take well. The committee will decide the chairmanship, but it does of course have a government majority, so the government majority will decide who the chairman will be on the assumption that Members in another place actually turn up to meetings—they do not have a very good reputation on Joint Committees, but that is by the by. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, why in those circumstances he wants to reduce the number of opposition members on the committee.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in the time that I have—

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will have his turn after I have finished when he decides whether to press his amendment to a vote.
	I will not attempt this afternoon to revisit our debate on 25 April on the original Motion to agree to the Joint Committee. The Motion was well debated then; the debate lasted more than an hour with a vote at the end. I know that a number of noble Lords have repeated the arguments, but it is not for me as chairman of the Committee of Selection to attempt to answer any of those questions. All I would say to those who have argued about the proposed membership of this committee from your Lordships' House and the decision of the Committee of Selection is that the original Motion was agreed to on 25 April, as noble Lords are aware. The Committee of Selection met on 9 May. In other words, there was a little more than two weeks in which any noble Lord—the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne, Lord Peyton, or others—could have put their names forward to sit on the committee. The fact is that the Committee of Selection met. Only 11 names were put forward for 11 places on the committee. So the Committee of Selection's job in choosing those 11 names was not very onerous.
	In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, although I think that the question has already been answered, as the Motion clearly said, the choice of chairman rests with the committee. It is not in the Government's gift. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a point that the meeting is at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. I agree that that is very quick. However, I am told that the proposed members of the committee were alerted to this fact on 17 May. Therefore, they have had a certain amount of notice to make themselves available for tomorrow's meeting.
	As has been said, there will be 22—

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, as far as this Member is concerned, that information is inaccurate. This Lord has not been informed of the date until now.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise for that. I was given the impression that noble Lords who were to serve on the committee had been advised that the first meeting would be tomorrow morning. However, the idea of going around the Houses to get agreement on a first meeting from 22 Members would not be easy. Therefore, it is best if a date is proposed. On tomorrow's Order Paper, noble Lords will see that I am proposing another Joint Committee of both Houses, probably of a less controversial nature than this one. But that is due to have its first meeting on Thursday, which is two days later, instead of one. So that is not unusual.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, pointed out rightly that there will be in total on this Joint Committee of both Houses 11 Labour Members, six Conservative, three Liberal Democrat and two Cross-Benchers. If my mathematics is right, at present there is parity of membership between the Labour Members and the rest. However, if the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is agreed, that would give the Labour Party a majority.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should not have said that, lest I tempt the noble Lords behind me. I am not sure whether there are any other questions which are specifically addressed to me as chairman of the Committee of Selection. All I would say again to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is that membership of the Committee of Selection is not entirely the usual channels. There are three Back-Bench Members and also the Convenor of the Cross Benches on it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was himself a member of the Committee of Selection once upon a time when he was Chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers. I would also say that this committee's membership was agreed by the House at the beginning of the Session, as is usual with these committees. If Members have any proposal to alter the membership of the Committee of Selection, that would be a different matter.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I hope that I can still come in to support my noble friend Lord Peyton. The Leader of the House said that the question of curbing the powers of the House was completely untrue. As I remember it, there was a proposal that this committee should consider the whole question of timetabling the amount of time that it took Bills to go through this House. If that is not a curbing of the powers of your Lordships' House, I do not know what it is.
	It is very important that the committee represents the views of the majority of Members of this House. As I see it, there is an overwhelming majority on the Labour and Conservative Benches, and probably on the Cross Benches, for an appointed House. It would be a great pity if the committee did not represent that. The Liberal Democrats of course pretend that they are in favour of an elected House, but, as on many other issues, they are split half and half.
	I had intended to say that I was totally sympathetic to the idea of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, being on this committee, but since I have heard him speak, he is clearly part of the half of the Liberal Democrats who believe in an elected House. For that reason, I am rather uncomfortable about having him on the committee at all. Therefore, I am afraid—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I am getting increasingly confused as we go through the speeches from the supporters of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated that this is a conspiracy to get an elected Chamber. Now we are getting an entirely different conspiracy theory from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I think we all have to be responsible for our own conspiracy theories. It strikes me that whether we are to have an elected House or an appointed one is absolutely critical to the role of this committee. In my opinion, if we continue with an appointed House, we know that it works extremely well. Those of us who are appointed come here and accept the rules set by your Lordships' House and don't bother to exploit them; therefore, there is no need to codify the conventions of the House anyway. On the other hand, an elected House would be a totally different ball game altogether. Is this committee the right one to be setting down the powers of this House? If anyone were elected to this House, I believe that they would be honour-bound to exploit the system as much as they possibly could for party advantage.
	On Wednesday, I raised with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the whole question of the composition of the House of Lords. He said that there would be a free vote in both Houses on the composition of the Lords. When will that happen? There should be a free vote in this House as soon as possible. The views of this House on its future composition are being completely ignored. At the moment, our future is being decided somewhere else and we do not seem to be having a lot of input into what happens.
	If the other place decided that there should be an elected House of Lords, and there was resistance to that here from the great majority of your Lordships, that would make life extremely difficult for the government of the day to get anything through this House at all. Perhaps the noble Baroness could come in on this, as I would like to know whether there will be an announcement in the Queen's Speech about having an elected House of Lords. I believe we should know that.
	I find it very mysterious that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor somehow suddenly disappeared off the committee that was supposed to decide what happens to our House. He is no longer on it. Why has he gone? I heard a terrible rumour that he had a meeting with Labour Back-Bench Peers and that the whole experience was so bruising for him, and he found himself in such a small minority with regard to his views, that he was reckoned to be totally non-representative of the Labour Back Benches and was not much use on the committee from thereon. If that is true, it would be nice if it could be confirmed by the Government. It is rather strange that the Lord Chancellor has no say whatever in the committee that is deciding the future of our House.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords do not wish me to make another speech. It was always my intention to withdraw the amendment. To vote on it would be to deny and to contradict what I have already said about my regard for the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Like some of the other things that I have said in your Lordships' House, what I said about the noble Lord today was not tinged with sarcasm or irony. I meant it and I hope that he will accept it.
	Before I withdraw the amendment I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that if he reads what I have just said, he will find in it an answer to his question.
	I regard the whole of this scheme, this Motion, as a step that your Lordships are invited to take towards the noose which has always been threatened from what the Government have said, both offstage and onstage. If your Lordships should decide to vote against the Motion, that is not a matter for me, but I should certainly go into the Lobby supporting the Motion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 184; Not-Contents, 31.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clause 1 Schedule 1 Clause 2 Schedule 2 Clauses 3 to 5 Schedule 3 Clauses 6 to 25 Schedule 4 Clauses 26 to 48 Schedule 5 Clauses 49 to 52.—(Lord Adonis.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
	Clause 26 [Prohibition on sale or transfer of air weapons except by registered dealers]:

The Earl of Shrewsbury: moved Amendment No. 119:
	Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) This section shall not apply to a transfer that takes place in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State specifying measures to be taken prior to any transfer."

The Earl of Shrewsbury: Clause 26 was added to the Bill at a very late stage in its progress in the other place and without any prior consultation. The new restrictions pose a serious threat to the trade and to users of air weapons. No evidence has been adduced to show that air weapons sold through registered dealers are more or less likely eventually to be involved in cases of misuse, and there is no evidence that retailers not currently registered are irresponsible in their dealings with the public.
	There are about 2,500 firearms dealers spread across Great Britain, of whom between 1,000 and 1,200 sell air weapons by retail. The remainder are specialist dealers, or those who do not sell by retail. There are between 1,000 and 1,200 retailers of air weapons who are not registered dealers. Thus, there are some 2,400 retail outlets for air weapons spread across England, Wales and Scotland. It follows that in many areas, particularly in rural areas, direct access to a retailer of air weapons would involve considerable time and expense.
	If a person or company now retailing air weapons decides to become a registered firearms dealer, they will be involved in very considerable expense and time-consuming bureaucracy. If they become a registered dealer, they will then be able to stock and sell all classes of firearm and ammunition except those to which Section 5 applies. The fact is that levels of trade and profit are such that many existing retailers of air weapons will simply cease to trade. Legitimate sales of air weapons will be reduced and the trade will be very seriously affected.
	Air weapons are the gateway to other shooting sports. A diminution in air weapon sales will have a knock-on effect for all shooting sports. If a reduction in the number of retail outlets is coupled with a requirement for face-to-face sales, which the Government propose in Clause 27, those in rural areas will be particularly hard hit and many will be deterred from acquiring air weapons.
	I have every sympathy with the proposition that air weapons should not be sold at car boot sales, from market stalls or other such places, but the present proposals will not ban such sales by individuals otherwise than by trade or business. It is accepted on all sides that registered firearms dealers should continue to be able to sell air weapons along with other firearms and ammunition.
	The amendments would create a simpler system of licensing: simple tests of the character of the licensee; an extended period of validity, varied in the first instance to avoid a bulge in renewals; simplified security requirements, and simplified registers and record keeping; an alternative regime of police inspections and supervision; reduced costs to the retailer, and a reduced administrative burden on the police. They would also ensure that the trade in other firearms is concentrated and more readily supervised by the police. I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Marlesford: I support my noble friend. This is another test of whether the Government are serious about deregulation. My noble friend has made it perfectly clear that he is seeking not to frustrate the intention of the Bill but to make its administrative burden more acceptable. The Government are always talking about deregulation. Sir David Arculus's group in the Cabinet Office has reported on it. The European Commission has sought a 25 per cent reduction of all EU regulations by 2010. Even the new German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has endorsed that objective.
	If the Government come out in favour of something like my noble friend's amendment, they will, by a simple example, show that they are not merely a government of adjectives.

Earl Peel: Have the Government assessed the likely effect of this part of the Bill on retailers? Having listened very carefully to what my noble friend said, I can come to only one conclusion: this is another attempt by the Government to reduce the number of airguns in circulation. Will the Minister confirm one way or the other whether that is government policy?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury made some very valuable points in moving the amendment. It is important to examine these matters in detail.
	Clauses 26 and 27 were introduced in Committee in another place. The Minister there undertook to provide information on how the licensing regime would work. I am grateful to the Home Office for providing me with a copy of the letter sent to my honourable friends on 10 November last year. Unfortunately, it does little to illuminate the registration process that the Government have in mind and does much to show why it will have its limitations.
	I understand that the main requirement of the Government's process will be to make retailers accountable to the police, but my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury's amendment also has that objective. In particular, I understand that the police will be able to withdraw registration where a retailer becomes a danger to public safety. The obvious example given is where a retailer sells to somebody underage, but my noble friend is determined to prevent underage sales as well, so he has the same objective.
	The then Minister, Hazel Blears, goes on to say in the letter that retailers will be required to keep records of transactions, removing the anonymity of purchasers and deterring casual and irresponsible sales. But my noble friend is also determined to ensure that there are no casual and irresponsible sales. Indeed, the whole thrust of his argument is to ensure that sales remain responsible.
	Will the Minister explain precisely how the Government expect the new registration system to operate in a way that is superior to my noble friend's proposal, why their method should be essential and why their version should be preferred?
	Subsection (2) of the Government's proposal amends Section 40(2) of the 1968 Act by requiring that dealers keep a register of transactions involving air weapons. Presumably we end up with a partial registration of air weapon ownership, with new ones registered but existing ones not. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford has already said, we are faced here with increasing regulation, which we need to be persuaded is necessary. The particulars to be entered in the register by a firearms dealer are set out in the schedule to the Firearms Act 1968. The Secretary of State can make rules to vary or add to them.
	In her letter, Hazel Blears stated that the Government would discuss with the trade and police what changes might be appropriate in that case. That letter was sent on 10 November 2005. What discussions with the trade have been held over the past six months? What proposals do the Government intend to bring forward as a result? How soon after commencement of this Bill will registered dealers be required to establish and keep such a register? Will this registration system interact with the national firearms licensing management system? If so, how will it do so? If not, why not, and how will it work? How will the registration system cope with the fact that many air weapons do not have a unique serial number?
	On another matter of detail, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said he would be quite happy to ensure that car boot sales were properly covered, pointing out that only those who sell air weapons by way of trade or business will be banned from such sales. One might say that any Tom, Dick or Harriet who turns up and enjoys their time at car boot sales will be able to go ahead and sell air weapons at those venues, whereas responsible firearms dealers will not. I find that rather odd. Is there any specific legal reason why the Government felt that people who sell air weapons only from time to time—and may not have such a responsible and strict way of governing to whom they sell—could not be covered by this Bill? It is possible that such people, because they are selling on an ad hoc basis, may have unsafe weapons, whereas firearms dealers would surely not be selling unsafe weapons.
	On a wider point, could the Minister also address the fact that the joint effect of Clauses 26 and 27 would be to hit those in rural areas particularly hard? Many will be deterred from acquiring air weapons they require for a legitimate purpose. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has made a valiant attempt to achieve the Government's objective, without the disadvantages of the Government's clause as drafted. That is, it avoids a negative impact on the business of retailing air weapons when carried out in a legitimate and proper manner. Did the Government consider the more proportionate system put forward by my noble friend before they launched their own proposals? If so, why did they reject it? If not, would they consider it now?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I put on record my thanks to the noble Earl for tabling the amendment, because it usefully enables us to spend a little time on the vexed question of air weapons. I will endeavour to explain as well as I can our general approach to this and deal with some of the points that have been raised. If I should miss any points, I undertake to try to perfect the answers we provide today.
	At present air weapons can be sold by any retailer from corner shops to car boot sales, as I am sure noble Lords will attest. They can also be bought fairly easily by mail order or via the internet, with little check on the age of the purchaser. This can all play a part in the unacceptably high level of air weapon misuse. It is worth reminding ourselves that in 2004–05 there were some 11,825 crimes in which air weapons were used, resulting in 1,502 cases of injury, including 143 cases of serious injury.
	I am also conscious of the fact that there have been a number of high profile cases of air weapon misuse, including the tragic killing of two year-old Andrew Morton in Glasgow. We have been looking very carefully, particularly with Scottish Ministers, to see what more can be done to tackle the problem. We have concluded that restricting the points of sale would tackle the problem at the source. I realise that it is a sensitive issue, and I fully understand that there are entirely—and this covers the majority of cases—legitimate uses of air weapons.
	Clauses 26 and 27 address the problem of misuse by requiring retailers to register with the police. In this way, retailers will be accountable to the police, the anonymity of purchasers will be removed, and casual sales will be deterred. Responsible shooters will still be able to purchase air weapons, but it will become harder for irresponsible people to do so. As I understand it, the amendment was entirely motivated by concerns about the impact that Clause 26 will have on shooting sports. I understand that. It is feared that the clause will deter retailers from selling air weapons, making it more difficult for people to take up shooting sports. I think that I can be confident in saying that we intend to address those concerns without needing to create the separate set of controls envisaged by the amendment.
	In a sense, we want to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, desires, which is to get the balance and burden of regulation and bureaucracy in the right order. The Government are clear that retailers need to register with the police, but we do not want that to be unnecessarily onerous on those retailers who deal only in air weapons. We will be making rules that will set out proportionate record-keeping requirements, and we will be issuing guidance to the police on a proportionate level of security. We will consult the trade carefully on both issues, and I recognise how important those issues are to it.
	I will work through some of the specific questions. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggested that we were attempting to slide in a policy of simply reducing the number of air weapons. That is not the intention of the policy. We are trying to reduce the potential availability of air weapons to criminals; it is not a back door way of getting at those who legitimately need to use air weapons for their sport. There was also the question about the national firearms licensing management system. I know that there are many in the House who share my view that it has taken far too long and that it is not the best advertisement for the implementation of important legislation. That system is close to fruition. It is concerned with certificate holders, and it will not apply to air weapons, so it is a bit of a red herring to enter that issue into the debate.
	We think that we have got the balance about right. We hope that we can work carefully with the trade, and we do not want to overburden it. Those retailers who are already registered as firearms dealers will incur no extra cost; other retailers will have to apply to the police for registration and pay a fee of £150. They will also incur some extra costs if they need to install security measures. I am sure that all would agree that that is important in itself but that they need to be proportionate and they should be minimal. That is our general approach.
	The question of Hazel Blears's letter was raised by the noble Baroness. As I understand it, Hazel Blears did not commit, in her correspondence, to a time by which we would have consulted on this issue. But it is clear that we need to approach this in a rational way and that we need to ensure that the consultation takes place in the right order. It would perhaps have been wrong to have pushed that too fast and too far before the Committee had had a decent opportunity to consider the matter as well.
	I entirely understand the approach adopted by the noble Earl. We want to deal with this in good time. We want to have a proportionate approach to record keeping. We will be sensitive in the way in which we consult the trade on this and it is not our intention in any way to damage or undermine the legitimate use of air weapons. I hope that, having heard that and with our commitment to consultation, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Before my noble friend responds, I would like to add that I am grateful to the Minister for the information that he has given us as far as it goes. My concern is that, although we have had a six-month consultation, I am not aware of whether the Government have had any negotiations during that period or whether the issue has been put on hold. The Minister seemed to say that the right time for negotiations is afterwards. The difficulty is whether the Government's method is going to be better and whether it will properly take into account the needs of the trade when the regulations are formulated.
	I asked specifically whether the Government had taken into account the fact that not all air weapons have a specific number, so it is more difficult to keep to registration. I am also aware that there may be advantages for the trade—for example, if the Government were to adopt a pragmatic way of allowing registration by batches of sales. Could the Minister give us any idea of what the Home Office thinking has been so far and whether they have had any meetings with the trade in the past six months? Will he give the Committee some indication of the practical steps that are being taken?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can certainly confirm that we have had some informal discussions with the gun trade; informal discussions take place all the time and we recognise the importance of keeping those informal contacts up. The noble Baroness raises an interesting issue about batches and it is something I will take away and give some further thought to.
	Our approach is perhaps overly cautious in the sense that until we are absolutely sure of the shape of this legislation we thought it was rather premature to have the more detailed consultation. I made the commitment that there will be careful and detailed consultation with the trade and we will put that in good order so long as we at first secure the legislation in the way in which we seek to at the moment. I hope that will satisfy the noble Baroness.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Obviously, the long debate we had beforehand has dulled my brain because I forgot to ask the Minister if he might address the other point I raised, which is about car boot sales by individuals. It may well be that he does not have to hand information on whether there is a legal reason why individuals are not able to be barred from such transactions at car boot sales and I would be perfectly happy if he were able to write to me on that point.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I omitted to answer the noble Baroness. We acknowledge that there could be some individual private sales but anyone selling by way of trade or business must register their place of business with the police. It is most unlikely that the police would accept a car boot sale as not posing a risk to public safety or to the peace.
	As to the question of what constitutes "by way of trade or business", this in itself is a matter of fact and degree for the courts to decide. It is not a new issue for them since they already have to make those sorts of judgments in respect of other firearms. With regard to private sales, eBay, for instance already has a policy of not listing for sale anything which is firearms-related, including air weapons. We will be looking to mount a rigorous enforcement and education campaign when the Bill comes fully into force and we will urge people to hand in unwanted guns at that time.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am pretty disappointed with what he has come up with, as he probably knew I would be. By the amount of paperwork banging its way backwards and forwards from the officials' Box to the noble Lord, I think that I should read very carefully in Hansard what he said. I shall most definitely bring this matter back for his attention at a later stage but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 26 agreed to.
	Clause 27 [Sales of air weapons by way of trade or business to be face to face]:

The Earl of Shrewsbury: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 29, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) This section shall not apply to a transfer that takes place in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State specifying measures to be taken prior to any transfer that is not face-to-face."

The Earl of Shrewsbury: This is slightly related to the previous amendment but, from my point of view and with the knowledge that I have been given by the Gun Trade Association and the British Shooting Sports Council—I declared an interest on this the other day—this issue is very important to me.
	The proposed ban on sales other than those that are face-to-face is disproportionate to the problem that has been identified and it will be particularly irksome in rural areas. There is no evidence to suggest that sales by mail order pose a particular threat, and I invite the Government to delete this clause in its entirety.
	If the clause is to remain, provision should be made for an exemption where acceptable checks on the identity of the purchaser are available and are employed. Such systems already exist but may well need to be refined. If a rule-making power were created, acceptable systems could be devised by the trade in conjunction with the police and the Home Office. Rules could then be made to allow such a system to displace the requirement for face-to-face sales. I believe that such a system would be more proportionate to the problem.
	In commending the amendment to the Committee, I mention that, again, this clause was introduced in Committee in the other place with no prior consultation and was little discussed at that stage before being accepted into the Bill. Senior officials in the Gun Trade Association were expecting to meet Miss Blears on 9 May to put forward their arguments on airgun matters, but the Cabinet reshuffle put paid to that meeting. The GTA was hoping for some progress before the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, but that has not been possible.
	Clause 27 will make it an offence to transfer airguns by mail order or the internet. All transfers by way of trade or business will have to be face-to-face. There is to be no licensing of airguns per se, and therefore there will be no audit trail. The sale over the counter requires the seller merely to establish the age, which will be 18, of the prospective purchaser and an address. The seller has two problems with this type of sale. If the purchaser looks okay, the seller will properly sell without an in-depth check as to his bona fides. The second problem is that, face-to-face, he may be tempted to consider the commercial question—for example, if he pushes too hard in his desire to extract information from the purchaser, he may well lose the sale.
	None of that happens with a mail-order sale. With a mail-order sale, the prospective purchaser contacts the seller, who asks him for a credit card number and a billing address. Very few credit cards are available in the UK to under-18 year-olds. The seller then confirms these details through the use of the electoral roll on the internet, freely available at minimum cost. Incidentally, I do not know how something can be freely available at minimum cost—that sounds rather odd. If the checks prove valid, the seller dispatches the airgun to the address on the electoral roll. That is a copper-bottomed method of checking bona fides which has been in use by the industry for a very long while and could easily be written into rules.
	Needless to say, the airgun industry relies very heavily on mail-order and internet sales, and taking away this aspect of it will seriously, and totally unnecessarily, hamper the trade. There is no evidence to suggest that mail-order sales in the past have caused crimes to be committed by those who purchase using this method. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We support the Government's objective to ensure that the sale of air weapons is carried out in a responsible way, and that they are not sold to those who are under age. The question is whether the Government have chosen the right approach. Again my noble friend is right to point out that another place had very little opportunity properly to examine these matters. The amendments were provided late before the Committee stage and were not properly scrutinised. On Report in another place there was very little opportunity to select a small number of issues that needed to be debated, so these matters were not properly attended to at that stage.
	The objective of my noble friend's amendment is to secure the responsible sale of air weapons without jeopardising responsible mail-order business. It provides an interesting alternative to the Government's approach. It would make an exemption where acceptable checks on the identity of the purchaser are available and are used. It creates a rule-making power for the Secretary of State, so the Government can be assured that they will be able to put appropriate safeguards in place. My noble friend referred in particular to the issue of sales using credit cards. I understand from the trade that they are well aware of credit cards that may be available to those under the age of 18. There is a way of ensuring that those credit cards would not be accepted as a proper way of purchasing air weapons. Therefore, there is a way of carrying out mail order sales of weapons responsibly with checks to ensure young people cannot be supplied with them.
	My noble friend's proposal is interesting, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister why the Government feel that that practical approach should not be preferred. It would secure the support of the trade and preserve their businesses.

Earl Peel: I wonder whether I can have another go at the Minister on the question of the financial impact on the gun trade if non-face-to-face methods are curtailed in the way suggested in the Bill. If retailers cease to trade because of that, to go back to the 1997 Act, will the Minister say whether compensation will be made available for such retailers?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I read the noble Earl's amendment again, and if it were one moved on almost any other Bill, or which had been sponsored by a Minister, we might be subject to the criticism of being rather generous in giving the Secretary of State the opportunity to make such wide-ranging rules. I understand the spirit behind the amendment, which is to create a lighter touch from regulations. I enter that important caveat at the outset because attractive though the amendment may be to some noble Lords, I caution against the approach that has been adopted. It is probably one that will cost me dear on other legislation but no matter; I shall pursue the point.
	We must remember that at present there are no controls on where air weapons can be sold. Clause 26 addresses that point, and Clause 27 addresses concerns that under-age purchasers can buy air weapons via mail order or over the internet. It requires dealers to hand air weapons to purchasers in person. Of course, I entirely understand the motivation of the amendment, which is to ensure that shooting sports are properly protected, and to meet the concerns of those in more remote areas who want to buy air weapons. I appreciate the fact that the clause may deter some of those legitimate purchasers.
	However, we can deal with the point without requiring the separate controls envisaged by the amendment. Clause 27 already provides help when someone wishes to purchase an air weapon from a retailer who is some distance away. It allows for the gun to be transferred to a local dealer so that the transaction can be completed more conveniently, but still face to face. So we answer the point raised by the noble Earl in his amendment, interesting though it is.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, mentioned cost to the retail trade. I gave some indication of where we thought costs might lie in answering the previous amendment. I am sure that this will disappoint the noble Earl, but there will be no compensation, because we are not moving or acting to prevent legitimate sales. Although we can see that there may be some added layer of difficulty by tightening up the way in which sales are conducted, it will not have such a serious or adverse impact as the noble Earl clearly anticipates. I understand the amendment's motivation, but it is met by the consideration that I have raised. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I thank the Minister for his words but I completely disagree with him. His approach involves a severe and meaningful restriction of trade. People will go bankrupt because of this. I am terribly sorry, but I cannot accept what he says. I would like to test the opinion of the Chamber.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 120) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 173.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Age limits for purchase etc. of air weapons]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I have given notice that I shall object to the Question that Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill. The effect of leaving out the clause would be to retain at 17 the age at which a person could purchase an air weapon. Clause 28 increases from 17 to 18 years the age from which a young person may purchase or hire air weapons or ammunition for air weapons. It also prohibits possession, and therefore use, of an air weapon by anyone under 18 years of age, subject to four limited exceptions.
	The Home Office, in its consultation paper of May 2004, indicated in part 3 that,
	"age limits for young people are complex and need simplifying".
	The Firearms Consultative Committee gave detailed consideration to some aspects of the problem in its 11th report, 2002, when it noted at paragraph 4.2 that,
	"there is general agreement that the current law relating to young people is complicated and inconsistent".
	However, it went on to warn that,
	"any changes to the present regime need to be carefully thought through and justified".
	If Clause 28 becomes law, differing restrictions on purchasing, accepting as a gift, possession on private property, possession in a public place and supervision requirements will apply to different classes of firearm at ages varying between 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 years. That is quite ridiculous. The provisions relating to airguns will generally and perversely be more stringent than those relating to shotguns and Section 1 firearms.
	Much has been said about increases in the misuse of air weapons, but much of the supposed increase is the result of changes in statistical methods.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This clause is an important part of the whole package of measures that aims to tackle the problem of air weapon misuse and I have given statistics on the significance and the scale of the problem. The Government have already introduced measures to address air weapon misuse, which have been welcomed. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 made it an offence to carry an unloaded air weapon in public without reasonable excuse. That power was welcomed by the police as it allows them to act without having to wait for an air weapon to be actively misused. The same Act raised from 14 to 17 the minimum age for buying or possessing an air weapon. There was similar opposition when we made that important change. It has to be acknowledged that much air weapon misuse is attributed to young people, and this measure restricted their access to the guns.
	But despite these measures, air weapon misuse remains a serious problem and we believe that more must be done to tackle it. We make no apology for that. Clause 28 further restricts young people's access to air weapons by increasing from 17 to 18 the minimum age for buying, hiring or possessing one. This will further reduce the opportunity for irresponsible young people to obtain and misuse an air weapon. This clause will not stop responsible young people using air weapons under controlled conditions. They will still be able to shoot at approved clubs, under adult supervision or, if they are 14 or over, on private premises with the occupier's consent.
	Air weapon misuse is a considerable problem. It upsets the lives of many people. It is vitally important that we do all we can to safeguard people. We believe that this clause will make a useful contribution to reducing the level of misuse. We do not believe that it is perverse for airgun age limits to be higher than those for other weapons that are controlled through certification. On the contrary, it could be argued that the lack of a certificate necessitates a higher age limit. We are attempting to achieve a degree of harmonisation on age limits, but I do accept that the harmonisation is not perfect. This clause is important. I understand the noble Earl's objection to it, but we think that we have the policy right, that it is going in the right direction and that this will help to raise the threshold at which gun misuse becomes a problem.

Earl Peel: I accept that this clause cannot be described as draconian. It is certainly not as contentious as some other Clause 28s I can think of in past legislation. I listened carefully to what the Minister said before I decided to intervene. Above all, I was looking for evidence to substantiate that this clause had some credence. I am sure everyone would agree that legislation should be based on need and evidence, not on the simple notion that it might help to solve a problem or so that it looks as if the Government are doing something. From the response that the Minister gave to my noble friend, I have to say that I came to the conclusion that that is what is happening. It seems faintly bizarre that the then Minister Hazel Blears stated in the Standing Committee on the Bill in the Commons:
	"We do not say that increasing the age from 17 to 18 will of itself solve the problem".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 25/10/05; col. 215.]
	Surely, that is another example of the lack of evidence. The Government have not been able to acquire the evidence to substantiate the need for this clause.
	Furthermore, I think I am right in saying that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 raised the age at which a person could buy an airgun to 17 and the effects of that are still being monitored. That makes the provisions in the Bill premature. I was also amazed to read in the briefing that I received that in response to various Questions for Written Answer put down by my noble friends Lord Brougham and Vaux and Lord Glenarthur, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, admitted that there was no way of establishing on a centralised basis the difference in airgun offences committed by 17 year-olds and 18 year-olds and that there are no plans to collect data on the age of offenders. One can conclude only that the Government have no justification for introducing Clause 28.
	Importantly, the Government have several times made a firm commitment not to attack the sport of shooting. I suggest that, in the absence of hard unequivocal data, Clause 28 does just that. I can reach no other conclusion. I know how my noble friend and those in the firearms world have worked with the police and the Home Office, and I am quite convinced that had the Government produced statistics that showed conclusively that 17 year-olds were abusing their rights, my noble friend and all those with whom he works would have backed legislation to ensure that these abuses were removed. The point is that the Government do not have the evidence, and I hope most sincerely that the Minister can make a slightly better case for the clause.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am rather puzzled by the arguments that the Minister has adduced against my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. I put that against the background of saying that I do not oppose the Government's proposals in Clause 28, but the Minister certainly seems to be advancing different arguments from those adduced in another place. He addressed the argument about why the age limit of 18 is higher than it is for other certificated firearms by saying that it can be argued that the lack of a certificate requires a higher age limit. We have not heard that argument today, and we did not hear it in the debates in another place. We should hear that argument today if the Government feel that it is persuasive.
	Ministers said throughout the debates in another place that they sought consistency, which is why there are provisions in the Bill to raise age limits for purchasing bladed weapons, knives and crossbows—again, proposals that I do not oppose. But if the Government are now to shift their ground on the need for the clause and say that a higher age limit is necessary because of lack of certification, I do think that they should state that argument for the record today.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have put that point on the record today; I was the one who uttered the immortal words. I think that we are going in the right direction.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I interrupt the Minister with great reticence. To state that there is a case is not the same as proving it. We need to hear the proof.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness chides me, and I accept the reprimand. What we are trying to say is that we believe that we are going in the right direction. The age at which these weapons can be acquired is being raised as part of the package, because the regime could be looser without the control to which the noble Baroness has referred. We believe that we have had some success in focusing on this issue, partly, I suspect, because we covered it in the 2003 Act, to which the noble Earl referred. In 2004–05, the number of air weapon crimes fell by some 14 per cent, and the number of injuries sustained as a result of the misuse of air weapons fell by some 37 per cent. But we are not complacent on the back of that success, because statistics tell us that there are some 12,000 crimes and more than 1,500 injuries as a result of the misuse of air weapons. We think that we can make some further impact by raising the age bar to 18. The noble Earl asked for evidence on that. Given that younger users of air weapons are probably less likely to be as responsible as older users of air weapons, that may well be where the misuse is more concentrated.

Earl Peel: I do not think that "may well be" is good enough. Is the Minister able to tell the Committee whether his department has published statistics to demonstrate that there is a disproportionate level of abuse in the use of airguns by 17 year-olds rather than other holders of such weapons?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl knows that we have not published information in that way. But it is a fair point to make that younger people are much more likely to use air weapons less responsibly. In 2004, 440 people were proceeded against for carrying an air weapon, whether loaded or unloaded, in public without reasonable excuse. Provisional data for 2005 suggest that 462 people were proceeded against.
	Clearly, there is an issue with air weapons, on which we need to concentrate. We do not want to see the abuse of air weapons. It is right to raise the age bar in the way in which we have suggested. We have had some success as a product of having done that in the past, which was welcomed by many, in particular the law enforcement agencies. That is why we believe that the policy is right. I am interested that the noble Baroness does not oppose the policy. She says that she supports it, which is very welcome.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his words. I go along entirely with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I agree that age limits should be raised as long as there is evidence. As my noble friend Lord Peel said, the Minister does not have the evidence, he cannot provide it today and he will not be able to provide it in the future. The fact is that raising the age limit from 17 to 18 is purely window-dressing. It is there to satisfy the Labour Party's public, so to speak; to make it look as if it is doing everything possible to reduce crime when most of us know that it is having very little effect whatever. Nevertheless, I shall not press the matter any further.

Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Firing an air weapon beyond premises]:

The Earl of Shrewsbury: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 30, line 39, after "if" insert ", without lawful authority or reasonable excuse"

The Earl of Shrewsbury: Members of the Committee will be getting very fed up of me in a minute. In moving Amendment No. 121, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 122 and 123. In the Bill, a complex Clause 29(2) makes provision for cases where a person legitimately shoots from one set of premises to another, but remains limited to those places where the defendant can show that he had at least a form of consent. Cases will arise, for instance, when a person is using an air weapon for vermin control when he or she may shoot on to premises in the belief that consent would be given—for example, in destroying vermin that is just over a boundary or when he genuinely but wrongly believes that he had consent or would have been given consent.
	In all cases where he or she occupies the property or has consent to shoot, he has lawful authority, but in cases of genuine error he will have no defence. The courts have always interpreted terms like "reasonable excuse" with some vigour and the term,
	"without lawful authority or reasonable excuse",
	is extensively used in the Firearms Acts and the Anti-social Behaviour Act—having a firearm, for instance, in a public place—and in connection with offensive weapons. It is a well known term that is much more concise and more easily understood than the terms proposed in the Bill and allows a more flexible approach. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I have checked briefly with the Liberal Democrats and it seems that they will not move or speak to Amendment No. 121A, which is grouped with this amendment. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, assent to that.
	My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has raised an interesting and important point. I noted that the issue of lawful and responsible firing of an air weapon from one set of premises to another was debated quite fully in Committee in another place on 25 October. As a result of that debate, the Government went away and had another think about how this clause should be drafted, and brought forward some of their own amendments. That was interesting because the debate centred on one issue: when the Minister wound up, Mrs Blears said that although this had not been mentioned, it had made her think of something else and that she would go away and table another kind of an amendment. We then got some lateral thinking. I appreciate that the Minister said in Committee that she was,
	"anxious not to penalise people who behave in a proper and responsible manner".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 25/10/05; col. 220.]
	That is important. The use of air weapons for vermin control, as my noble friend has said, is something that we should take seriously in suburban as well as rural areas. I live in an urban area in Woking—it could hardly be more urban—but we have golf clubs and I have been advised that golf clubs are concerned that they might fall foul of these provisions when they hire people to control vermin around the boundaries of their property in what can be fairly urban conditions. If they believe that consent either has been given or would be given, but are mistaken in that belief, they would fall foul of the offence as created here, which is surely not right. I do not believe that that is what the Government can intend.
	Have the Government considered further the consequences of their amendment to the Bill on Report in another place? Do they recognise that there are complexities in the drafting of the amendments that they tabled in what I appreciate was a fully constructive spirit in another place? I think there are some unintended consequences. It would be useful if the Minister could say that the Government are prepared to consider these matters further. Perhaps we could have meetings between now and Report to see whether more perfect drafting could be achieved.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness for their comments. I shall pass on the fact that the noble Baroness believes that Hazel Blears is capable of lateral thinking. That is something that occurred to me a long time ago. I am also grateful that she thinks that we have a constructive frame of mind on this—we certainly have. If I needed any further reminding of that fact, my noble friend Lord Davies, who sits next to me on the Front Bench and who is a keen golfer, reminds me that vermin are indeed a problem on the periphery of many golf courses that he attends. Whether that is because he goes there or not, I am not sure; I doubt it.
	With this clause we are trying to close a gap in the law by making it an offence for a person of any age to fire an air weapon beyond the boundary of premises. As the noble Baroness has attested, concerns were expressed earlier in the passage of this Bill that the offence did not allow for circumstances where it would be legitimate to fire an air weapon beyond premises. At that stage, the only example given was where someone had permission to shoot vermin from the occupiers of adjoining land. The Government responded to those concerns by amending the Bill to include a defence where a person could show that they had the consent of the occupiers of each of the premises into or across which they fired.
	Given the very narrow range of instances where shooting beyond premises would be acceptable—golf courses included—we chose to address the point by including a defence rather than the sort of formulation proposed by the noble Earl in his amendments, which could go much wider. We have not subsequently been made aware of any legitimate activities that would not be covered by that defence, so we are not persuaded that anything more is required.
	I have heard what the noble Baroness said. I am not sure that I want to take this away for further consideration with a promise to bring forward an amendment, but if there are some real difficulties and unintended consequences, as she suggests, perhaps she and her colleagues would write to me, as I shall be interested to hear about them. As I said, we have not heard of any other legitimate activities that might not be covered by the defence, and it is for that reason that I am not prepared to consider the amendment.
	We believe that the phrase,
	"without lawful authority or reasonable excuse",
	is too imprecise. We have been willing to move on that issue. When circumstances show that it is legitimate to shoot beyond premises, there is this defence; but I do not want to make exemptions so wide as to undermine the overall purpose of the clause. That would be unfortunate in the extreme. However, we have accepted that there was an issue, and I think that the bit of lateral thinking that we have indulged in will probably be fit for purpose.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am most grateful to the Minister for his comments, which I find very constructive. I thank him for the invitation to my noble friend on the Front Bench and perhaps myself to write to him if we think of anything else that might assist him in his task. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 121A to 123 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Page 31, line 25, leave out "17" and insert "18"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I need not detain the House too long. This is a technical amendment that ensures that an entry in the table of punishments in the Firearms Act 1968 reflects the correct age limit for possessing an air weapon. Subsection (5) amends the entry relating to offences under Section 23(1) of the 1968 Act, which applies to persons supervising young people who shoot air weapons beyond the boundary of premises. The entry as drafted refers to the current age limit of 17, but Clause 28 will increase that to 18. This amendment corrects the reference to show the new age limit. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Restriction on sale and purchase of primers]:

Baroness Harris of Richmond: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is unable to be here at the moment, I should say that I shall not be moving Amendment No. 124A, but I thought that I should give the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, sufficient time to prepare himself if he wants to move his amendment.

[Amendment No. 124A not moved.]

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: moved Amendment No. 124B:
	Page 33, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) Nothing in this section shall limit the number of—
	(a) primers to which this section applies, or
	(b) empty cartridge cases incorporating such primers,
	to the number of manufactured bullets of the relevant category permitted by the firearms certificate in question."

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful for those kind words from the Liberal Benches. I apologise for not having been able to take part at Second Reading, owing to a business commitment. This is a short probing amendment, in which I should declare an interest as my stalker at home in Scotland hand-loads the bullets which we use for stalking and vermin control. I table it against the background of the growing complexity and over-regulation governing law-abiding people who own firearms, particularly rifles. Already the over-regulation causes a substantial drain on police time, when police would be far better employed apprehending criminals than spending days, as they now have to, checking up on the minutiae of how many bullets one has used for each rifle over a period of years, and so on.
	One is reminded of the time when Her Majesty the Queen's solicitor lost his shotgun certificate because his mother, in whose house his weapons were kept, knew the whereabouts of the key to his gun cabinet. You could not make it up, could you?
	I am also reminded of my own amendment to the Bill banning handguns after Dunblane, which would have allowed the slide mechanisms and chambers of pistols to be kept securely in the clubs, together with their ammunition, with the rest of the weapon being kept at home. That obviously sensible amendment was carried in your Lordships' House by the largest ever majority against a Conservative Government, but it was overturned in the Commons. So handguns were banned, depriving some 56,000 law-abiding pistol shooters of their hobby and sending some 5,000 small businesses to the wall. Yet pistol crime has more than doubled since then and the weapons are still easily available in the underworld. The whole exercise was thus entirely futile and destructive.
	It is against that sort of background that I bring forward Amendment No. 124B, which speaks for itself. There is a rumour going around the self-loading fraternity that the number of cartridge cases and primers that one will be allowed to buy will be limited to the number of finished bullets on one's certificate. Given the time that it takes to make a bullet accurately, and that many of these people live in extremely isolated locations and have difficulty acquiring the ingredients needed, that would clearly place an unwarranted restraint on those who load their own ammunition—who, as I have said, already have to put up with far too much red tape. For instance, I am told that bullet heads cannot now be sent through the post, although they are not in the least dangerous on their own and most unlikely to be of use to anyone except the addressee. Also, it is apparently illegal to send a silencer through the post, which seems just as silly for the same reasons.
	I hope that the Minister can reassure us that this sort of red tape is not to be extended through the Bill. I would of course be grateful for any comment that he might care to make about the wider issues of severe over-regulation in that small sector, and whether the Government might be agreeable to any sensible deregulation, either in this Bill or elsewhere. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall answer one point from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, at the outset. It is simply that we are always open to receiving ideas for what may be described as sensible deregulation. As the government spokesman on regulatory matters in your Lordships' House, I am open to offers there and can be positive in that regard. As to rumours circulating among self-loaders in Rannoch Moor, I am not sure whether I can be quite as helpful as the noble Lord would like. Regarding Amendment No. 124B, there is nothing as we see it in Clause 30 that would in any way limit the number of primers that may be bought or sold.
	The requirement is, essentially, for a person purchasing primers to have a certificate authorising him to possess ammunition or a firearm of a relevant kind. As long as his certificate allows him to possess ammunition for such a firearm—which is defined in a way that excludes a shotgun, an air weapon or one chambered for rimfire ammunition—he will be able to purchase as many primers as he would like, without reference to the number of rounds of ammunition that he is allowed to possess. As is currently the case, he will of course be unable to use the primers to make up more rounds than his certificate allows him to possess at any one time. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it in the light of the explanation that I have provided.
	Amendment No. 147D is a technical amendment. One issue we looked at closely in another place was the definition of primers. To meet the concerns of the shooting community, we tightened up the wording and introduced amendments to refer to,
	"cap-type primers designed for use in metallic ammunition for a firearm".
	We also wanted to cover primed cases and came forward with a reference to an,
	"empty cartridge case incorporating a primer".
	The amendment seeks to reflect this change in Clause 43's wording by deleting the reference to anything in which such a primer is contained and substituting the agreed terminology. As such, it is purely technical in nature and I commend it accordingly.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, who may have been more helpful than he imagined, even beyond the broad confines of Rannoch Moor. I may bring forward amendments at a later stage of the Bill which he may find helpful, particularly as regards the treatment of bullets, silencers and other completely inert objects but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 30 agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Restriction on sale and purchase of ammunition loading presses]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 31 stand part of the Bill, but, in the past few days, through the good offices of the Minister and the hard work of a gentleman named John Batley who is from the Gun Trade Association and connected with the British Shooting Sports Council, I have been led to believe that the Minister is prepared to give us some good news. I shall sit down immediately and allow him to address the matter.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Like my noble friend, I was grateful to the Government for accepting the existence of a defect in this clause. My honourable and right honourable friends in another place voted to delete the clause in Committee. The Government amended it on Report, but it still remained defective. It is one of the most inherently flawed clauses in the Bill. It is only right now that we can at least recognise that the Government have at long last accepted that fact. As the gun trade has been eloquent through the good offices of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury on this matter, we may succeed in persuading the Government on others.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I am sure the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will accept, Ministers at all times attempt to be helpful. I give a word of thanks to the noble Earl on this matter, because he and Mr Batley have between them done a first-rate job in pointing out where the clause was defective. We are very grateful to them for their help. I would like that to be recorded in Hansard because it happens to be the case. The best stories are always those which are the case, as it were.
	We accept that an ammunition loading press is a device used to carry out the full range of mechanical operations required to reload a cartridge. We accept that these various stages can be carried out without specialist equipment, using simple tools available from any DIY shop. Moreover, although we have tried to keep this clause proportionate and have exempted antique presses, there remain difficulties of interpretation, as the noble Baroness alluded to, as to what precisely is covered by this clause. Given that it is not possible to reload ammunition without primers, and bearing in mind the controls that we have introduced in Clause 30 to restrict the sale and purchase of these items, we accept entirely that it is no longer necessary for Clause 31 to stand part of the Bill. Both sides of the Committee are completely at one on this, and I congratulate the noble Earl on his hard work.

Clause 31 negatived.
	Clause 32 [Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 125:
	Page 35, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) Before publishing regulations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) persons appearing to him to have an expertise in firearms; and
	(b) such other persons as he sees fit."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Let us hope that the outbreak of consensus around the Committee continues with my Amendment No. 125. I am grateful to the Countryside Alliance for its support for this amendment, whose objective is to ask the Government why they have failed to fulfil their commitment to establish a firearms advisory committee. Clause 32 makes it an offence to manufacture, import or sell a realistic imitation firearm. Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for exceptions and exemptions from the offence and to provide for further defences in respect of the offence.
	My amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to consult before publishing any regulations under that subsection. I ask that he should consult those people who appear to him to have expertise in firearms and I give him the latitude to consult such others as he sees fit. Our amendment is necessary to prevent further haphazard legislation of the kind that has plagued firearms law. Proper consultation is essential if this clause is to work effectively and appropriately.
	The Government stood down the Firearms Consultative Committee way back in 2004. That committee proved an invaluable mechanism for consultation with all interested parties, but its replacement, the firearms advisory committee, is still nowhere to be seen. The Government's consultation paper in May 2004, Controls on Firearms, stated on page 9:
	"Consideration is currently being given to the remit and composition of a two-tier body to advise the Secretary of State on firearms matters. This body will replace the Firearms Consultative Committee which was allowed to lapse at the end of January 2004. Membership will include people with a technical knowledge of firearms and those with a wider interest in gun issues".
	I thought that it was a bit rich of the Minister to say that that Firearms Consultative Committee was allowed to lapse; it was killed off by lack of attention. My amendment would enable the Government to carry out their commitment. I am not being prescriptive about who should be on the committee. The amendment is not only constructive, it is also very necessary.
	When this matter was debated in another place, the Minister's response was clearly unsatisfactory. The then Minister, Hazel Blears, said:
	"The Home Office already has dialogue with the main shooting organisations, the police and other interest groups when particular issues arise. We are reconsidering whether a two-tier firearms advisory committee could be constituted once we have determined how to deal with the review of firearms controls".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 25/10/05; col. 257.]
	But the problem is that the Minister did not explain what a two-tier system might be. She also rejected the essential point that we make—that changes should happen now. A consultative committee should surely be in place before consultation processes need to take place, not just at some time in the future. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I make it clear at the outset that we are more than happy to consult on the details of any regulations to be made under this part of the Bill. We recognise that these are complex issues and we would want to have a close dialogue with the gun trade, the main shooting organisations, toy manufacturers, the police and any other interests before making any regulations. Should we not do so there would be a strong risk that the regulations in question would be prayed against when they were submitted to both Houses as required by subsection (5) of Clause 32.
	However, it is generally unhelpful and inflexible to enshrine such a requirement in statute in the way that the noble Baroness suggests. While I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for his very important work as chair of the former Firearms Consultative Committee, one of its drawbacks was its statutory terms of reference. I accept that the amendment is not overly prescriptive in its detail but nevertheless it refers to persons appearing to have an expertise in firearms. Does this mean an expertise in firearms technology perhaps, or in buying and selling guns, or perhaps in enforcing the firearms legislation or in their actual use for target shooting or hunting? What sort of expertise would that mean? I have given a few examples of the difficulty that such phrasing might create.
	As was made clear in another place, we will look again at how a new firearms advisory committee might be constituted once we have determined how to proceed with the review of firearms controls. The formulation of regulations would certainly be among the issues for consideration.
	I again assure the Committee that we will take on board the views of all interested parties when making regulations, but we see no reason why that needs to be put on a statutory basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned a two-tier system. The aim of a two-tier system is to create a main committee to look at broader issues and a second tier to look at technical issues. We considered the range of issues and the elements of expertise that we needed to have in place and came up with a two-tier or two-part system. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness. I invite her to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister says that the amendment is not necessary and that the Government will, of course, consult before regulations are brought forward through statutory instruments. He said that if the Government did not do that, there could be problems when the statutory instruments were brought before this House and another place. The difficulty is that the Minister says that against a background where, as we all know, the Government consulted on firearms matters. They have received 4,000 responses, the analysis of which we have not as yet seen, but they have introduced the relevant legislation as a pre-emptive strike, which has upset many responsible, legal holders of firearms. I was about to say that the Government had jumped the gun. That is so corny, but I have said it now. Therefore, it is a bit rich that the Government are now saying, "Do not worry; of course we shall consult". The problem is, it is not just consultation that matters, but rather listening to the results of that consultation, benefiting from the advice one is given and doing something about it.
	I am not convinced by the Minister's reply but my amendment is not one on which I would divide the Committee. I agree with him that this is not the appropriate place for a statutory provision for such a body, but I still feel extremely disillusioned by the way in which the Government are ploughing ahead with legislation when they have not taken fully into account the consultation process that preceded it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 125A:
	Page 35, line 35, at end insert—
	"(6A) A realistic imitation firearm brought into Great Britain shall be liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts.
	(6B) In subsection (6A) "the customs and excise Acts" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In moving Amendment No. 125A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 128A.
	Although Clause 32 makes it an offence to bring into Great Britain a realistic imitation firearm, it does not specifically prohibit the importation of the goods. We have been advised by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs that the absence of a prohibition in rem means it would be unable to seize such an imitation if it discovered it while it was being brought into the country. Similar considerations apply in relation to Clause 35(2)(d), under which it is an offence to import imitation firearms which fail to conform to specifications aimed at making it impossible for them to be converted into real firearms.
	These amendments seek to redress the situation by establishing that these goods are liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Acts. In drawing them up, we have been guided by examples of similar provisions in relation to controlled drugs and offensive weapons. The powers are cast in terms of the goods being liable to seizure, which means that a Customs officer will be able to use his discretion, as now, in deciding whether it is necessary to seize particular goods. It also means that if the goods are liable to forfeiture, it might not always be necessary to prosecute. The sort of case where this might be appropriate is that of young people returning from a school trip abroad with items which are prohibited in this country. These two amendments are necessary if we are to stop realistic imitations being brought into this country illegally, and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Specific defences applying to the offence under s.32]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 126:
	Page 36, line 8, leave out "that does not distribute any profits it makes"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This group contains government amendments and those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I shall try to cover both sets.
	Amendment No. 126 is a small but important amendment which will benefit private museums and galleries. I believe that for that reason it will be broadly welcomed.
	The Government believe that the ban on manufacturing, importing, selling or modifying realistic imitation firearms is necessary to curb the alarming level of imitations used in crime. But we do not want to interfere unduly with legitimate activities where there is no alternative to using realistic imitations. For that reason, the Bill includes a range of exceptions and defences.
	One such defence relates to museums and galleries, which sometimes use realistic imitations in place of rare and expensive real guns. The defence for museums is drafted along the same lines as the provisions relating to offensive weapons in Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: it applies only to museums that do not distribute their profits; in other words, to public museums. We have received representations, on behalf of private museums open to the public as tourist attractions, to the effect that this requirement is unnecessarily restrictive. Our overriding concern is, of course, public safety. We therefore want to ensure that the defence is available only to bona fide museums. This is already achieved elsewhere in the clause and, on reflection, we agree that the requirement not to distribute profits is unnecessary. We are content to apply the defence to all bona fide museums, public and private.
	Amendment No. 127 provides another defence against the new offence of manufacturing, importing, selling or modifying realistic imitation firearms. The proposed defence would apply to people participating in organised airsoft games. This is an activity in which battle scenarios are acted out, using realistic imitation guns. The Government have received many representations for a defence or exemption for airsoft activities. We met a delegation of representatives from the airsoft sector. Their case is that, for them, using realistic guns is an important part of the "airsoft experience". They have proposed a system of self-regulation, as a basis for exempting their activities from the ban. The Government have carefully considered the arguments put forward by the airsofters, but we see no compelling reason why they should not use non-realistic imitations for their activities. Airsofters will be able to take advantage of provisions in Clause 34, which will allow imitation firearms to be sold if their size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment on that point.
	However, government Amendments Nos. 127A and 127B will be of some assistance to the airsoft industry, as well as to users of imitation firearms more generally. In addition to airsofters, there will be a demand for non-realistic imitations from people such as dog trainers and race starters. We understand that the great majority of guns used in airsoft are made in Pacific Rim countries, and it is highly unlikely that manufacturers there will be prepared to modify their products to look non-realistic. Amendments Nos. 127A and 127B therefore provide a defence for business to import realistic imitation firearms solely for the purpose of modifying them to make them non-realistic. This will ensure that non-realistic imitations will be available to all those who have a real need for them.
	We have already demonstrated our attempts to be proportionate in what is covered by the provisions in the Bill on realistic imitation firearms. In particular, we have been clear that we do not wish to hinder historical re-enactment activities. To that end we broadened the scope of the defence in Clause 33 and defined "realistic imitations" in such a way as to exclude imitations of antique firearms. In case there are further difficulties, we have retained a power to make regulations.
	Amendment No. 127C seeks to extend the meaning of "historical re-enactment" to include any presentation or other event at which people use blank-firing realistic imitation firearms. Arguably this goes wider than intended, because there is no link to past events or conduct. However, even if it is not defective in this respect, such an amendment seems unnecessary. Clause 33 does not differentiate between realistic imitation firearms which are totally inert and those which fire blanks; they are all the same. It does not therefore matter whether an historical re-enactment is staged using inert realistic imitations or blank-firing ones. If it is organised and held by persons specified or described in regulations made under subsection (2)(e), they will still be able to obtain the same type of imitations they currently use. For those reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I think I have covered all the amendments in this group and beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I welcome government Amendment No. 126, because it addresses the concern I raised at Second Reading regarding museums and galleries. The Minister referred to Amendment No. 127, on airsoft, and Amendment 127C, which asks about the impact of the Bill on historical re-enactors. I shall deal with historical re-enactments first because I can be briefer on that. I understood from what the Minister said that, in a sense, it does not matter what those organising historical re-enactments fire, provided they fall within the definitions of those persons in the clause. They will not necessarily contravene the law if they are using blank-firing realistic imitation weapons. The Minister may well have given me the assurance that I need.
	Last week I explained my reasons for tabling this amendment to the head of the Bill team. The Minister attacked the drafting of the amendment, but this was only a tool, not an end in itself. It was a probing amendment because I had received a letter of concern from Mr Owen David Powell, secretary of the Great War Society. The society fulfils an important educational role in helping to preserve a piece of this country's history and heritage. It honours the memory of the British soldiers of the Great War. It also does a lot of work raising money for the Royal British Legion. There is urgency about this inquiry because this summer the society is due to play a major part in the 90th anniversary commemoration of the battle of the Somme. It has planned this in conjunction with the French Tourist Board and has approval for its activities from French local government officials. Again, with this event it will be raising money for the Royal British Legion. They will be followed by British Forces TV. It is a big, prestigious and serious event.
	The society welcomed the Government's decision to drop deactivated firearms from the scope of the Bill, and the inclusion of a specific defence, in Clause 33, for the use of realistic imitation firearms in historical re-enactments. Just one area of concern remains. I shall ask about it very clearly, because the Government's answer may have given the assurance, but in rather occluded language. The society is concerned that the legal use of blank-firing realistic imitations may still be in question once the Bill reaches the statute book. In that case it would cause it a problem because it owns a blank-firing imitation Lewis gun, for use in demonstrating infantry fire and movement tactics for the period at public displays. The society will take the gun abroad this summer as part of the display at the Somme. Having taken it to France, the society does not want to then be in the position of not being allowed to bring it back into this country because it is illegal. All I want is an assurance that it will not be contravening the terms of this new Act—as it will be by the Summer Recess, I imagine—once it has taken the Lewis gun out of the country and then wants to bring it back in again. They are very law-abiding people.
	It may seem odd to think that that was the shorter part of the explanation; the longer part concerns airsoft. I was very content that both my amendments were grouped with the government amendments. It made sense to do so, but it means that I need to refer at some length to the question of what is likely to happen to those who take part in the sport of airsoft. The Minister has said that he rejects my amendment and that the Government are looking at the issue of those who take part in airsoft activities, but there is no compelling reason for them to use realistic imitations.
	I think it is right that I put on record the background of why I tabled the amendment and why the Association of British Airsoft has a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed in the Bill. Amendment No. 127 has as its objective to ensure that those who engage in airsoft activities can continue to do so in their current form. It would give them a defence to the offence of using a realistic imitation firearm. It would only enable them to continue their sport following the regulations set down by the Secretary of State. I am being reasonable; the Government could thereby ensure that the sport was only carried out under regulated and safe conditions and ensure that those weapons could not be available to those who wanted to use them for illegal purposes. I am very grateful to the Association of British Airsoft for its careful briefing on these matters. I appreciate that the amendments passed on these matters in another place may not have quite the beneficial effect that the Government intended, and that the sport of airsoft is under threat as a result.
	Airsofters have said to me that it is vital in skirmishing that they should be able to use realistic imitation weapons, and that is where there is a mismatch between them and the Government. There has been a degree of misunderstanding on this point by the then-Minister Hazel Blears. She continued to hold discussions with airsofters until the reshuffle, in what I feel was intended by her to be a constructive way. Her letter following a meeting on 7 February reveals the basis of this misunderstanding:
	"While I do accept that realism is an important aspect of airsoft activities, having carefully considered the representations which you made, together with those made to me direct by individual players, I have to say I am not persuaded that the tactical and other skills you referred to cannot be developed using imitation firearms that are distinguishable from the real thing".
	It is not tactics and skills that are the core reasons for airsofters' need for the continued purchase of realistic imitations; it is the realism of the whole experience.
	Since the Minister said that he does not think that is a compelling argument, I ought to put on record briefly what airsoft comprises. I am aware that many noble Lords will not yet have been briefed on the sport. In layman's terms, airsoft skirmishing is an action game based on military simulation. Airsoft is much more than a simple game of tag, as paintball tends to be. I am advised that it is an all-encompassing experience, which constantly evolves and changes. In that respect, it is much more akin to the film industry or re-enactment than either to paintball or laser tag. The experience of creating an alternative reality is no different from that of the film industry or re-enactment; both use special effects and props to entertain their audience. It would be unfeasible and ridiculous to suggest that the film industry or re-enactors should give up replicas that are realistic, and the Government are not asking them to do so. But they are asking airsoft skirmishers to do just that and give up their realistic imitations.
	The Association of British Airsoft showed me photographs of skirmishing with realistic imitation weapons, and photographs in a mock-up situation with the brightly coloured weapons that would be allowed under the legislation. Instead of standing with a realistic imitation firearm, you would have a great big piece of yellow or orange, perhaps see-through, plastic; it does make the whole sport look ridiculous. To say that there is any way that one would be taking part in an experience would become laughable. To create the illusion and the experience, airsofters need the props that are fit for the job; bright yellow guns are not fit for the job.
	Exemptions have been given to the film industry and to re-enactors, and I am seeking a similar exemption for airsofters. I heard the very firm response by the Minister that there was no compelling argument. I certainly am not giving up on this matter, as I feel there is a reasonable argument. I do not seek to divide the House today, because I feel that it may be possible to benefit from further discussions before Report stage, if the Government are prepared to continue with those discussions. I hope that the Minister is prepared to say today that he will look kindly on saying to the Home Office that we should have some kind of discussion, both on a political level and with the Association of British Airsoft, before Report stage.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the courteous, thorough and thoughtful way in which she spoke to her amendments. I will deal with them in turn. First, I ought to put right a mistake that I made, as I did not fully complete speaking to the government amendments. I had not properly considered my notes, and I apologise to the Committee for that. I will briefly run through the two amendments that I have not covered, and then I will return to the points raised by the noble Baroness on her amendments.
	Looking again at the provisions in Clause 32 which make it an offence to manufacture, import or sell realistic imitation firearms, it became apparent that a small tweak was required to the specific defences created in Clause 33. Although persons in the service of Her Majesty are not bound by these provisions, anyone who sells a realistic imitation to them or who manufactures or imports realistic imitations for those purposes would still be committing an offence, since they are not themselves Crown exempt. For example, the police and members of the Armed Forces use realistic blank-firing or dummy weapons for a range of tactical and training purposes or to try out onto-weapon accessories, such as night vision devices. Clearly, it is important that those should continue to be available to them. Amendment No. 126A seeks to ensure that by extending the specific defences in Clause 33 to cover supply for the purposes of functions carried out by someone in their capacity as a person in the service of Her Majesty. Amendment No. 147C makes a consequential addition to Clause 43 to apply the definition of,
	"a person in the service of Her Majesty",
	used in Section 54 of the Firearms Act 1968.
	The noble Baroness referred to the concerns expressed by the Great War Society about the reconstruction of the battle of the Somme. I am almost inclined to declare an interest, as my now very late stepfather was a combatant in that great conflict as a boy soldier. It is now nearly 90 years ago and I am sure that, like all of his compatriots who fought, he was very brave indeed. We owe that generation a great debt of gratitude. We have had discussions in the past few days with the secretary of the Great War Society and I think we have now securely reassured him about blank-firing imitations. I think that the society is now satisfied by the assurances that there should be no difficulty. I am sure that will apply to the Lewis gun, to which the noble Baroness referred, as well.
	With regard to discussions with the airsofters, I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from on this. We accept that tactics and skills are only one aspect of airsoft, and that suspension of disbelief is considered important by airsofters. Nevertheless, we take the view that they can continue their activities using non-realistic imitations. The noble Baroness invited me to continue dialogue on this issue outside the Chamber. I am reluctant to give great encouragement to the idea that there might be a compromise or outcome that may satisfy all concerned but I am not unhappy for discussions to continue. If common ground can be found between us and the airsofters, we remain open to offers, as it were. At this stage I am not prepared to give a commitment that we will be able to achieve exactly that. I certainly would not rule out having more discussions on the matter and will happily hear what the noble Baroness has to say outside the Chamber. We have probably satisfied the concerns of the Great War Society but airsofters present a problem that is beyond us today.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 126A:
	Page 36, line 18, at end insert—
	"(f) the purposes of functions that a person has in his capacity as a person in the service of Her Majesty."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 127A and 127B:
	Page 36, line 18, at end insert—
	"(2A) It shall also be a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 32 in respect of conduct falling within subsection (1)(d) of that section to show that the conduct—
	(a) was in the course of carrying on any trade or business; and
	(b) was for the purpose of making the imitation firearm in question available to be modified in a way which would result in its ceasing to be a realistic imitation firearm."
	Page 36, line 20, after "(1)" insert "or (2A)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 127C not moved.]
	Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 34 [Meaning of "realistic imitation firearm"]:

The Earl of Shrewsbury: moved Amendment No. 128:
	Page 38, line 1, leave out "In subsection (7) "modern firearm"" and insert "For the purposes of this Act only, the term "modern firearm" in subsection (7)"

The Earl of Shrewsbury: Amendment No. 128 deals with antiques and the definition of dates for antiques. Clause 34 seeks to define the term "real firearm" to include only modern firearms and Clause 34(8) defines the term "modern firearm" as,
	"any firearm other than one the appearance of which would tend to identify it as having a design and mechanism of a sort first dating from before the year 1870".
	Effectively, this includes as a modern firearm anything designed after 1 January 1870. If 1870 was an inclusive date, the reference would be "designed in or before".
	For the purposes of clarifying what might be a realistic imitation firearm, that dateline may be appropriate, but the definition creates a very real danger of imposing a definition on the term "antique firearm" as used in Section 58(2) of the 1968 Act. Whatever the intentions of the Government or of Parliament, it seems highly likely that the courts, in seeking to define the term "antique firearm" in a future case, will be referred to this definition and are likely to look at the term "modern firearm" as defining the difference between antique firearm and modern firearm.
	The courts will be supported in that view by the comments made by the Minister in another place:
	is the correct cut-off point between what is considered a modern firearm and what is considered an antique firearm".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 25/10/05; col. 260.]
	Appellate courts in England have long been regarded as willing to stand the English language on its head in seeking interpretations that strengthen the law on firearms. One might cite Cafferata v Wilson, et al, in 1936 which the Scottish Court refused to follow in a detailed and cogent argument in Kelley v Mackinnon of 1982 on the grounds that the English courts' interpretation of the law was "obviously wrong" and,
	"sought to ascribe to Parliament the intention that the words of these provisions should mean not only what they say but also the opposite of what they say".
	There are many other examples.
	At present, the term "antique firearm" has been interpreted by the courts to include many firearms made long after 1869 and Home Office guidance makes it clear that a large array of later firearms should be considered to be antique. The matter was considered by the Home Office in its consultation paper Controls on Firearms of May 2004 at page 14:
	"Nothing in the Firearms Acts applies to any 'antique firearm' that is held as 'a curiosity or ornament'. 'Antique' is not defined in law but the Home Office provides published guidance on what might constitute an antique gun (also known as the 'obsolete calibre' list). This effectively covers those firearms which do not use readily available ammunition. Many antique guns are not particularly attractive to criminals and have not so far featured prominently in crime. Further controls on antiques would only be likely to penalise people with a genuine interest in collecting antique guns. We do not therefore believe that regulatory changes are necessary".
	In its response to the 2004 consultation, the gun trade and many other organisations supported that view and until the day on which Clause 35(8) was tabled, that had been considered to be the current policy of the Home Office. The amendment seems to reverse that policy without a word of warning. The number of antique firearms in circulation that fall between the date of 1870 and the effective coverage of Home Office guidance or the current state of the law cannot be accurately stated, but it runs into many hundreds of thousands, with a value of many millions of pounds. All these have been acquired or possessed on the assurance by the Home Office that their possession is legal. A change in the law will reduce the value of these guns by 40 to 50 per cent and the market will rapidly collapse. Trade in this class of antiques will be limited to the export trade, museums and a very few collectors who are exempt. Existing collections or individual weapons will lose much of their value and their owners are likely to seek compensation.
	There is a general consensus, obviously shared by the Home Office as late as May 2004, that such antique firearms pose no significant hazard to public safety and that any such legislation would harm only the law abiding. It may be argued that the fact that the definition of "modern firearm" is used in a restricted context in this Bill only means that it cannot be applied more widely. If that is the case, there is no reason not to make that clear in the Bill. This amendment seeks only clarity of interpretation and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise briefly to support my noble friend. My name is on the amendment. I know that at Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, tried to give reassurances on this matter, but I understand that my noble friend wants to achieve clarity in the Bill to avoid any potential for confusion in the courts later on. On that basis he should be supported.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment seeks to confine the definition of the term "modern firearm" to purposes connected with the Violent Crime Reduction Bill and no wider. It might help if I briefly reminded the House that the reason we introduced the concept of a modern firearm was to allow realistic imitations of what might loosely be classed as antique firearms, being of a type which the modern criminal is unlikely to use in pursuit of his nefarious activities. However, there is no cut-off date in the legislation for antiques. Indeed, there are some firearms which are regarded as antiques by virtue of the fact that they are chambered for obsolete cartridges or use obscure ignition systems. Many of these look pretty much like firearms in use today and it would not have made sense for realistic imitations of these to be allowed. Instead, we have confined the ban to realistic imitations of modern firearms which will exclude those which have a design and mechanism of a sort first dating from before 1870.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, readily acknowledged, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, explained at Second Reading why we chose this date. It was because that was when the manufacture of a particular type of breech-loading firearm became more widespread. I am happy to put on record again that we intend this date to apply only to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill; it has no effect on Section 54(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 which deals with the status of real antique firearms. It would be otiose to add the wording suggested by the amendment. Moreover, there is a danger that its inclusion might suggest in relation to other pieces of legislation that specific provisions could indeed be used more widely in interpreting other laws unless there was a clear expression to the contrary.
	I hope that I given a clear assurance. I believe that I have. I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am most grateful to the Minister for his constructive remarks, with which I am completely satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 34 agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Specification for imitation firearms]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 128A:
	Page 38, line 40, at end insert—
	"(5A) An imitation firearm brought into Great Britain which does not conform to the specifications required of it by regulations under this section shall be liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts.
	(5B) In subsection (5A) "the customs and excise Acts" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Supplying imitation firearms to minors]:
	[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
	Clause 36 agreed to.
	Clause 37 agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 131:
	Before Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"SENTENCE FOR OFFENCE OF HAVING ARTICLE WITH BLADE OR POINT IN PUBLIC PLACE
	In subsection (6)(b) of section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (offence of having article with blade or point in public place), for "two years" substitute "five years"."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Knife crime in this country is on the increase. Recent reports suggest that in some parts of the country it has risen by as much as 90 per cent in two years. Perhaps the most worrying trend is the increase in the carriage and use of knives by young people. There seems to be a so-called "culture of the blade" and I am sure we all agree that something more needs to be done. Terror is the only word that can sufficiently describe what must be experienced by a victim of crime when someone in the street draws a knife on them. But those who carry knives believe that somehow it is a brave thing to do or that it enhances their respect among their peers.
	This week, the Government said that they will launch a national amnesty on sharp-bladed weapons, but a senior police adviser has said that the measure will not reduce crime levels. Detective Inspector Keith Perkin, who works on the knife crime advisory team of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
	"We could have a message that a knife amnesty will reduce knife crime, but you and I and any members of the public know that is not going to happen. A knife amnesty per se will not reduce knife crime. It is a marketing tactic and it raises awareness".
	My view is that if something assists in raising awareness and reduces knife crime, that in itself must be supported, as a knife amnesty should be. I hope that it works effectively but, as the police officer recognises, it is only one part of the overall attack that there has to be on knife crime.
	It is important that we explore all the possibilities open to us and employ as wide a range of measures as possible to reduce knife crime. That was certainly brought home to me when I looked again over my speaking notes yesterday. I had fresh in my mind all the stories that we heard at the weekend about the death of Kiyan Prince last week. It was a tragedy for him and his family. It was deeply shocking, and it is something that should not be allowed to happen in our society.
	It is right that we should work together to send a strong signal to those parts of society that think that carrying a knife or blade in a street is somehow acceptable. We should show that such behaviour is not tolerated and that, if caught and found guilty, the individual will face very severe consequences. My amendment would try to do just that. It would increase the maximum sentence for the offence of having an article with a blade or point in a public place from two to five years. Not only would that act as a deterrent to those who might consider carrying a knife in a public place but it would, I hope, also send a message to victims of crime that Parliament has expressed its will that such an offence should be treated with the utmost gravity.
	The need for such an amendment becomes all the more apparent when one considers the sentencing powers of the courts in relation to a similar offence—possession of an offensive weapon under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. This offence carries a maximum penalty of four years. Given the rise in knife crime, surely the time has come to consider whether the offence of carrying a bladed article merits a greater sentence than that available under the 1953 Act.
	My amendment is put forward in the constructive spirit of trying to find a variety of ways to tackle knife crime. If the Minister says that it is poorly drafted or that perhaps five years is not the right maximum sentence, I should certainly be prepared to discuss that. But I hope that I shall hear from the Government that they are prepared to consider this matter again. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I share the noble Baroness's concern in tabling this new clause with the aim of ensuring that those using a knife in violent crime or carrying a knife without good reason receive appropriate sentences. The fatal stabbing of Kiyan Prince last week shows the devastating effect that knives can have if they fall into the wrong hands. Like the noble Baroness, I express my sympathy to his family and to his friends at the London Academy. Noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot speak about the case as a young man has now been charged with Kiyan Prince's murder.
	The amendment refers to having an article with a blade or point, for which the maximum penalty currently stands at two years. I should set the context by pointing out that there is a different, although related, offence—possession of an offensive weapon—under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which carries a maximum penalty of four years. In 2004, some 5,800 people were convicted of this offence. That is a similar figure to the number charged with possession of an article with a blade or point, so it is not some little-used offence. "Offensive weapon" means,
	"any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or some other person".
	There are key factors which put the offender into one category rather than another. The first is the weapon itself. If it has no innocent use—for example, butterfly-knives, disguised knives and sword-sticks are offensive weapons per se—then the charge will be possession of an offensive weapon. An offender can be charged with the more serious offence if he is in possession of, say, a kitchen knife but threats are made to others with it or it is shown that he planned to use it. That means that the offence to which the amendment relates is the simple act of being in possession of a knife, which is capable of some non-violent use, in a public place.
	Maximum penalties generally should be proportionate, indicate the relative seriousness of the crime and allow for proper punishment of the most serious instances of the offence; for example, the offence of actual bodily harm has a maximum penalty of five years. Although injury caused under that offence may be relatively minor, it is none the less real injury. The offender who simply possesses the knife has not caused any injury or used the knife to threaten.
	Of course, those using a knife in violent crime must receive appropriate sentences. For example, causing grievous bodily harm with intent has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and current sentencing practice sets the usual starting-point for stabbings at between three and eight years. The Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance on "seriousness" treats use of a weapon as an aggravating factor. We expect the forthcoming Sentencing Guidelines Council guideline on assaults to reiterate that use of a weapon increases the seriousness of violent crime.
	The Government's view is that the best way to deal with sentencing in this area is through the guidelines produced by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I am sure that the noble Baroness will willingly accept that. As I explained, there is a hierarchy of offences and penalties to deal with the carrying of offensive weapons and knives and with the crimes committed using them. I simply argue that we need to be mindful of this existing hierarchy.
	However, the Government properly and fully understand the noble Baroness's concerns and we certainly understand the spirit in which the amendment has been moved. I cannot promise today to bring back a specific amendment that addresses the issue in precisely the terms in which she moved her amendment but, between now and Report, I undertake to ensure that we have a further review of it. I am also prepared to have further discussions with the noble Baroness on that point. It is important to review the penalty. It is important too that we have the opportunity to engage with the Sentencing Guidelines Council, because of its expertise and understanding. It has a better understanding than I have of the hierarchy of penalties that are appropriate and applicable.
	The noble Baroness made some interesting points about the knives amnesty which has been launched this week. It is more than just a good marketing move to promote the importance of getting as many dangerous weapons and knives off the streets as we can. The Government have been busy and robust in this area. It is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships that since spring 2002, as part of the Safer School Partnership scheme, more than 400 police officers have been based in schools to reduce victimisation, criminality and anti-social behaviour. That has had a beneficial effect and we think that it helps young people's understanding, particularly about the dangers of carrying weapons. Most pupils never carry a knife. Thankfully, given that we have a school population of 7.5 million in 24,000 schools, very few of those pupils in percentage terms will ever have a knife on their person either in or out of school. But we must take account of the fact that a small number do, and that they can cause great harm and damage. It is worth noting too that out of some 820 homicides in 2004–05, 236 involved sharp implements. It is also true that only 6 per cent of all violent crime is knife-related. That figure thankfully has remained stable for many years.
	There are some depressing sides to this issue, but some encouraging signs too that our campaigns over the years and the impact of stressing the dangers of carrying a knife have had an important effect on younger people. We want to work with the police and schools to ensure that we carry on the important educational work that this area of policy recommends itself to.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. I certainly understand where it is coming from. In the current atmosphere it helps raise awareness of the issue, for which we should be grateful. The commitment that I give today is that we shall review where we are at with the penalty for this offence. I am sure that we can have further discussions outside your Lordships' Chamber on that issue.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for that commitment to review whether something needs to be done. I accept that other offences may carry a higher maximum sentence. The difficulty is, as he explained, the circumstances in which that might happen. It is very much within the context of the weapon having been used. I want to get to the situation where people are deterred from carrying something that could be used as the weapon in the first place. The reason for tabling the amendment was to ensure that the subsequent use of the weapon might not occur.
	The Minister also referred to the incidence of knife-carrying among young people. We should perhaps refer to weapons with blades. There are different types of knives: some are butterfly knives, or hidden; others are strictly kitchen knives or penknives. He said that only a small number of people carry knives. I wonder whether that is taking percentages over the whole country. When I was doing some work for this amendment, I made sure that I looked at several websites of victims and those who are trying to discourage young people from using weapons of any kind. Certainly some of the work that has been done by them showed that in two areas of London—I shall not identify them because one does not want to draw attention to areas of London where young people may think that it is cool to carry knives; it is not—secondary schools thought that as many as 25 to 30 per cent of their pupils had at some stage in the past year carried a bladed weapon. I find that extremely disturbing. I accept entirely what the Minister said about the importance of consulting the Sentencing Guidelines Council about the hierarchy of penalties and the importance of carrying out a review to ensure that whatever is done is proportionate. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 38 [Sale etc. of knives and other weapons]:

The Earl of Shrewsbury: moved Amendment No. 132:
	Page 40, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

The Earl of Shrewsbury: Clause 38 proposes to raise from 16 to 18 years the age at which knives, and so on, may be sold to young people. The amendment would leave that age at 16 while accepting the remaining amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The provision in that Act relates to selling,
	"any knife, knife blade or razor blade . . . any axe, and . . . any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed and which is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person".
	There is an exemption for small folding pocket knives and razor blades in cartridges. Within the prohibition will be household and kitchen knives. Many young people are married or cohabiting before they reach the age of 18 and will be prevented from buying their own table knives. Knives as diverse as putty knives, trimming knives, butchery knives, kitchen knives and skinning knives, together with axes and possibly tools such as chisels, are used by trainees in skilled occupations, such as chefs, plumbers, joiners, butchers, gamekeepers, stalkers and many more.
	Trainees in many trades, like the old-fashioned apprentices, are required to buy their own tools progressively as they near qualification. All these people and many more simply will not be able to do the job without a knife. Trainee gamekeepers and stalkers must have a knife for gutting, skinning and general use. The 17 year-old gamekeeper who holds a shotgun certificate will be able to walk into a gun shop and buy shotguns and cartridges, but will not be able to buy a new skinning knife.
	It will not be an offence to give a knife to a young person, so both those who need their knives for trade purposes and those who will use them for crime will be able to get an adult to purchase a knife and then hand it on. While the change will inconvenience the law-abiding it does not seem likely to affect criminals. The evidence quoted about knife crime in the regulatory impact assessment is incomplete and, in particular, does not identify the type of knife used. Anecdotal evidence indicates that knives used in crime are likely to be kitchen knives, hobby knives such as a Stanley knife, or home-made knives. Something as common as a Phillips screwdriver is particularly well suited to this purpose. Hobby knives appear to come into and out of fashion, but feature significantly in crime. Any young person wishing to carry a knife for use in crime has merely to walk into his own kitchen to be well armed.
	The proposed restriction will not impact on knife crime, but will be a cause of considerable difficulty and embarrassment to those in the affected age group. There is no justification for raising the age limit which, at present, coincides with the age at which many of those mentioned above will leave school. If it is to be raised despite that, it should be set at 17, in line with the general consensus on ages for firearms, imitations and so on. I beg to move.

Lord Marlesford: I strongly support my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. I am astonished that the Government can put forward such a proposal, which my noble friend is trying to remove because it is obviously the wrong way to approach the matter. It is fatuous for all the reasons given by my noble friend. It will be a test of common sense to hear what the Minister says about the idea of reducing the age to 16 for people to be allowed to buy the sort of tools of their trade and life, to which my noble friend referred. It will be a test of the Government. I am horrified that such a proposal from some nameless official ever got as far as being in the Bill at all.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our previous discussion of the seriousness of offences involving knives made plain everyone's concern for, and a degree of consensus on, the seriousness of the issue. The Government are concerned about the carrying of knives in public for use in violent crime, and are fully committed to doing everything and anything possible to deal with this, while recognising that many people carry knives for entirely legitimate purposes, as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said.
	The Government believe that more needs to be done to help prevent young people getting hold of knives in inappropriate circumstances. Young people are already committing an offence if they carry knives in the street: it is an offence to carry a knife in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches, to which the noble Earl referred. We must prevent young people getting hold of knives. It is an offence to sell a knife to a person under 16, and Clause 38, as is understood, increases this to a person under 18.
	The measure should not interfere unduly with legitimate use of knives and will send a clear message that the Government expect knives to be used for legitimate purposes by responsible adults, or under the supervision of responsible adults. We recognise that under-18s would be required to get adults to buy knives to carry out legitimate business. We accept that this could cause some inconvenience for under-18s who are law-abiding citizens, such as a 17 year-old chef or some of the other examples to which the noble Earl has referred. It is true that they would not be able to buy a kitchen knife, nor would a young person who has just left home in the circumstances described by the noble Earl. However, this inconvenience will be outweighed by the impact on the perpetrators of knife crime and the fear that they can cause the public at large.
	It is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships that a 17 year-old would need a certificate to get a shotgun but not to get a knife or, for that matter, an air weapon. I accept that there are some difficulties here, but we are engaged, as the noble Baroness said earlier, in a campaign which is about more than just these measures. It is about trying to persuade people, particularly young people, of the dangers of carrying knives. This is a positive move in that respect, although, I accept, one which is not without some awkwardness involved. However, it is a move towards greater consistency of the age at which younger people hold something which could be dangerous in certain circumstances, and should not be carried in public—and certainly not with the intent to cause harm to others.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My name is attached to this amendment. The offence of carrying a knife in a public place is already well catered for in criminal law. That is the matter concerning public safety. Simply banning the sale of a knife to someone between the ages of 16 and 18, as proposed by the Government, is a futile gesture. Knives are regularly available in the household. I can tell the Minister from long experience that those knives are more likely to be Exhibit A than anything purchased illegally and carried by a youth, but that is perhaps beside the point. Banning youngsters of the age of 16 who may need knives, as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has said, for their trade and perhaps for domestic arrangements as they leave home adds nothing to the Government's worthy aim of cutting down knife crime.

Lord Monson: The noble Earl suggested that it would be illegal for people of 16 and 17 to buy chisels and other tools. Can the Minister say whether this is, in fact, the case?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: They may well be caught by this provision, yes.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am again most grateful to the Minister for his words. I seriously believe that the Government are wrong on this: it will make absolutely no difference to crime and will not benefit the safety of the public. It will cause a great deal of inconvenience for people in bona fide and legitimate forms of work. I will read carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said. I may well come back with a different amendment on Report. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 38 agreed to.
	Clause 39 agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Power to search school pupils for weapons]:

Lord Boston of Faversham: I must point out to the Committee at this early stage that, in view of the groupings, if Amendment No. 133 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 133A; and if Amendment No. 133B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 134.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 132A:
	Page 42, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) Nothing in any enactment, instrument or agreement shall be construed as authorising a head teacher of a school to require a person to carry out a search under this section."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a large and complicated group of amendments. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 133A, 133B, 138A, 138B, 143A, 143B, 175 and 176. I will also discuss the opposition amendments in the group.
	The government amendments prevent a head teacher, in Amendment No. 132A, requiring a member of school staff to carry out a search. The new power could mean, in a few cases, that a head teacher could reasonably direct a member of staff to conduct a search, just as they could direct staff to take disciplinary action such as giving a detention, breaking up a fight or removing a pupil from a classroom. The statutory requirements for teachers' conditions in maintained schools say that a teacher shall carry out professional duties, including discipline, and health and safety, under the reasonable direction of the head teacher.
	We want, exceptionally, to prevent direction by the head teacher in the case of this particular power. While a head teacher could not lawfully issue such a direction if it were unreasonable—for example, if it would put at risk the safety of the member of staff; staff associations have expressed some concerns—we recognise that, where a suspected weapon is involved, staff would prefer to avoid discussing on the spot whether a direction by the head teacher was reasonable. In practice, as a matter of good staff management, a head teacher would anyway be likely to seek assent from staff to undertake any such task as this.
	This power is an exceptional case. Staff still have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect other pupils and staff, perhaps by isolating the suspected pupil, calling in their parent or carer or, perhaps, in extremis, calling the police. The lack of equivalent requirements for staff in further education colleges or attendance centres makes it unnecessary to seek any amendment there.
	The government amendments to Clauses 40 to 42 require that the other person present when a search is conducted is another member of staff of the school, further education college or attendance centre respectively. We have opposed this, because it is better for the second person who must be present to be someone with a formal duty of care towards those being searched, which increases safeguards for both those being searched and, of course, the staff.
	Opposition Amendments Nos. 133 to 134, 138 to 139, 143 and 144, on the second person who must be present, aim to achieve the same effect as the government amendments. We made a commitment on Report in another place to consider this, and now resist the opposition amendments because we have brought forward our own amendments, the drafting of which, not unnaturally, we prefer. In those circumstances I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 135 to 137, 140 to 142, 145 and 146 would remove the proposed power to generally authorise staff to search for weapons in a school, FE institution or attendance centre. The amendments would define a head teacher or institution principal to include a deputy, if the head teacher or principal is away, and require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to schools, institutions and attendance centres. It is important that they have a power to authorise staff generally to search—that would allow staff to act immediately when they suspect a concealed weapon, without seeking specific authorisation at that point. Without general authorisation, staff, pupils, students and attendees generally could be at risk if staff suspected a weapon while the head teacher, principal or their deputy, or the officer in charge, was away for any particular reason. At attendance centres in particular, staff work with those who may have a history of carrying offensive weapons. Defining a head teacher or principal to include a deputy, when the head teacher or principal is off the premises, would only be necessary if staff need authorisation for every specific search or particular description of searches. It is not needed if, as the Government propose, those amendments are rejected.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 137, 142 and 146. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills plans to issue guidance for schools, and the Home Office plans to issue guidance for attendance centres. Further education institutions will be able to make use of guidance issued for schools. It is not necessary to put a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance.
	I should add that government amendments to Clause 56 allow the National Assembly for Wales to commence the provision conferring the power to search students for weapons to members of staff of institutions in the FE sector in Wales. I beg to move.

Lord Boston of Faversham: In view of the fact that the Minister has referred to the other amendments that have been mentioned, I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 138 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 138A; if Amendment No. 138B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 139; if Amendment No. 143 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 143A; and if Amendment No. 143B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 144. I am sorry to have had to trouble your Lordships with all of those.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I assure the Deputy Chairman of Committees that I will not put him to any difficulty because I will not press my amendments when we get to the appropriate stage. Of course, I do welcome government Amendment No. 132A, which puts the matter clearly that somebody cannot be forced to take part in carrying out searches. The Minister referred to the main thrust of these government amendments, which is that when a search takes place, the second person there should be someone with a duty of care—a member of staff. Indeed, I agree entirely that that was the matter put forward by my honourable friend Humfrey Malins in another place. The then Minister, Hazel Blears, said, "We'll take it away and we'll think about it". I then raised it at Second Reading, and the problem I then had was the response by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. When she responded to matters put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on a different point on searches, she appeared to say that another adult will be present, but she did not say that it had to be another member of staff. She said:
	"I am sure the noble Lord does not seek to make a distinction between a teaching assistant and a teacher or some other responsible adult".—[Official Report, 29/3/06; col. 848.]
	Well, of course, I did. That was exactly the point I sought to make and the point I had thought that Hazel Blears had taken on board. I now find, thank goodness, that that is exactly what Hazel Blears had intended. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was seeking to be helpful, when in fact she said something that she did not mean to say at Second Reading. The next day, I busily tabled a raft of amendments, to which the Deputy Chairman of Committees had to refer and then call out. That was on 29 March. I was very relieved last week to see that the Government had indeed tabled their own. With regard to the searches, that is fine. But I do have other queries, raised by my amendments.
	First, what if a member of staff is invited to take part in a search, and does so, and then they find a bladed weapon, for example, and the person being searched is not some compliant young person, who says, "Oh, yes, Mr Smith. Don't worry. Here you are. This is where I carry my knife. Here it is," and then hands it over by the handle? What if this person carries the knife because they are not exactly the nicest person on God's Earth? What if, when they are searched, they then use it on the member of staff? Have the Government been in discussions with the unions that represent teachers about what happens then, from the point of view perhaps of compensation that might be needed for the injury caused to the teacher? I wonder whether the school must now carry out its own insurance in these matters—I simply do not know how it will work. I wonder what the Government have done to find out how it will work in the real world. I agree with the Government that it is right that these searches should be possible, that they should take place, but I do worry about what might happen to some teachers when they carry this out. However good the guidelines are, however carefully the searches are carried out, there could be some unfortunate results.
	I tabled some other amendments in the group, including Amendments Nos. 135, 140 and 145, which raise another aspect of the power to search students at attendance centres. I think it is important that searches should be carried out only where strictly necessary. Subsection (1) of the Government's revisions appears to try to ensure that that restriction applies. It means that a search should take place only where a member of staff has reasonable grounds for believing a student has a weapon on him or in his possession. That is fine. I agree entirely with what the Government are trying to do there.
	I find subsection (10), however, rather confusing. It appears to widen staff's power of search to enable them to search generally, rather than having a specific reason, a specific person, or a specific occasion. This would mean that they could just say, "Right, we'll have searches every Monday, at 10 am, for the next year". I would not see that as a very helpful way forward. My amendment simply removes one part of subsection (10), which seems to me to be replicating the power given in the remainder of the subsection. What does, "Generally in relation to searches," in the subsection mean? What would be lost if that were removed? Surely if the staff can search only if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that weapons are being carried, that power to search should be limited to a search of a particular person, or persons, on one occasion.
	If there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that students routinely carry weapons, on a particular occasion—let us say they are going to an away football match—I would imagine that that power to search would be conferred by the phrase, "A particular description of such searches". Do the Government really intend that schools should be able to have a policy to routinely search everybody, or a particular class—a group of people—when they enter the institution?
	Amendments Nos. 136 and 141 address subsection (3), which provides that a search can only be carried out if the person making that search is either the head teacher of a school, or is a person who has been authorised by the head teacher to do so. My understanding of what the Minister said is that if the government amendments are agreed to—I do not need to worry that—and if the head teacher is absent, there would be nobody there to authorise a search. What happens if the head teacher is absent from the school, for professional or personal reasons, and an authorisation for a search that is taking place is needed? How is the authorisation of the search given? Does the definition of head teacher cover a deputy head holding a permanent appointment? Could it cover a person who is acting as a head teacher's deputy, even though they do not have a permanent appointment, and how will that work? I realise that there may be an answer in the provisions of the Education Act 1996. If so, I would be grateful to be pointed towards it, as I could not find it.
	Finally, my Amendments Nos. 137, 142 and 146 relate to guidelines. Of course the Government said that there will be guidelines, but I had a simple, straightforward reason for tabling the amendments, although not the usual one used by the Opposition. I wanted to ask about the training that the Government expect schools will put in place to ensure that searches are carried out appropriately.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I start with a positive sentiment: that we have achieved a degree of consensus across the Committee on this issue and I appreciate the careful thought and consideration that the noble Baroness has given in speaking to some of her amendments, which do not replicate ours. I am grateful to her for the way in which she has done that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the comments made by my noble friend Lady Scotland at Second Reading. We believe that her comments were consistent with the amendments tabled. We do not seek to distinguish between a teacher and some other responsible adult employed by the school, which was implicit in what she said. As regards exclusion, we do not want a person to be able to conduct or to be present at a search merely because they are 18 or over, such as a visitor on the premises or even a passer-by. We want to ensure that we exclude in particular that class of person. The provision relates to the staff in schools; namely, teachers and other responsible adult employees such as teaching assistants. With something as tricky as this, we have had to undertake careful consultation with school staff unions. That took place at length and largely through working groups such as the school security working group and the working agreement management groups.
	With regard to some of the noble Baroness's other amendments, in particular Amendments Nos. 135, 141 and 145, if we removed the power to authorise staff generally to search, leaving only a power to authorise a particular search or a description of searches, we think that it might make it harder for staff to search without checking at the time whether they were authorised. The effect of such a limitation is modified for schools and FE institutions by opposition Amendments Nos. 136 and 141. They provide for a deputy to authorise if the head teacher or principal is away. But, critically, the amendments omit to provide for a deputy in attendance centres. We are therefore troubled by those amendments.
	I should make it plain to the Committee that head teachers can authorise staff in general to search, so to define heads further we do not believe is entirely necessary. It would only be necessary if each authorisation were for one specific search. So there is a complexity to be thought through there.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendments, but we do not believe that they add greater clarification to the way in which we have phrased our amendments. We are also grateful for the way in which the debate has been conducted through the Commons and at Second Reading here. That has given us the opportunity to refine some of our thinking on the issue and we accept that it is not easy to resolve. We need to get the level of responsibility as properly defined as we can.
	I hope that that answers some of the points raised by the noble Baroness. If not, I am happy to have further discussions with her outside the confines of the Committee.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We would find it helpful further to discuss a general policy to have searches. That might take the provisions wider than some schools had intended. I have seriously in mind the situation in which a head teacher is likely to be absent. The Minister seems to be saying that it is likely the head teacher will, before going away, say, "Okay, staff, you go ahead and search whenever you want". I do not think that that is quite what is intended by the original proposal and it might be helpful to have further discussions between now and Report. Of course, I shall not be moving any of my amendments today.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I wonder whether the Minister would include me in those discussions. As I understand it, subsection (10) refers to a general authorisation to a member of staff; in other words, the appointment of someone to carry out the searches. If that were to happen, the proper training given to that individual or individuals—presumably it would be necessary to have people of both sexes—could then be carried out.
	I believe that the Minister has a number of issues in mind. The first is the safety of the teacher carrying out the search, which is important. The second is the important issue of false allegations being made against a person who carries out a search. That is why it is important to have a member of staff of some standing and position to be present while that search is being carried out. The third issue is the protection of the pupil because, unhappily, it is conceivable that a search could be carried out improperly and without reasonable grounds. There could be a degree of intimacy which would be unwelcome to the pupil being searched.
	These are all important issues and I understand that the Minister is seeking to strike a balance. The amendments tabled by the Government and accepted by the Opposition are very good and, generally, we are moving in the right direction. However, perhaps a little further discussion may help to make the system watertight.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his comments. He is right that training and the safety of staff, pupils and others in schools is important. He is right to raise the issue of false allegations because we know that some people can be malicious and mischievous. He is certainly right to refer to the appropriate way of conducting searches with the appropriate level of authority being present in the person of a senior staff member within the school. I am therefore happy to include the noble Lord in any further discussion that takes place on these issues so that we can better understand what we are seeking to achieve. There appears to be a high degree of consensus on the issue.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 133A and 133B:
	Page 42, line 15, leave out from "another" to "also" in line 16 and insert "member of the staff who is" .
	Page 42, line 18, leave out from "of" to end of line 19 and insert "another member of the staff" .
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 not moved.]
	Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 41 [Power to search further education students for weapons]:
	[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 138A and 138B:
	Page 43, line 30, leave out from "another" to "also" in line 31 and insert "member of staff who is" .
	Page 43, line 33, leave out from "of" to end of line 34 and insert "another member of staff" .
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 139 to 142 not moved.]
	Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Power to search persons in attendance centres for weapons]:
	[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 143A and 143B:
	Page 44, line 45, leave out from "another" to "also" in line 46 and insert "member of staff who is" .
	Page 45, line 2, leave out from "of" to end of line 3 and insert "another member of staff" .
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 144 to 146 not moved.]
	Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Marlesford: moved Amendment No. 146A:
	After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
	"POWER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS
	If a police constable has reason to believe that a person or persons in a particular area may be carrying firearms, he may arrange—
	(a) for the area to be sealed off; and
	(b) for the searching for firearms of any people or vehicles in that area, by whatever means he considers appropriate."

Lord Marlesford: A few minutes ago, we were discussing an amendment tabled by the Government to prevent people aged between 16 and 18 buying kitchen knives, chisels and other such things. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly described it as a futile proposal. We hope that we will come back to it later on. My amendment is intended to widen the powers of the police to intercept illegal guns in public places before they can be used. It is a wholly practical amendment, and I make no apology for the fact that I moved the same amendment in March 2002, when I put forward the need to deal with growing gun crime in the United Kingdom. At that time, the Government did not accept my amendment. They said that there were already powers under the Terrorism Act to intercept weapons—of course, I was not talking about the Terrorism Act—and that this was not something that had been thought of in the Home Office and was not the sort of thing they wanted to do.
	Things have changed a lot in the past four years, and they have changed for the worse. Four years ago, I referred to New York, where 90,000 guns had been seized from the streets between 1995 and 2002. Between 1995 and 2005, murder in New York fell by 54 per cent, from 1,181 people murdered to 540 last year. Robbery has fallen by 59 per cent, from 60,000 robberies to 24,000 robberies. New York is by no means perfect, but it is a much safer place than it was and the authorities in New York and in other cities in the United States are focusing on how they can reduce gun crime.
	Things are very different in the UK. From 1995 to 2004–05, offences involving firearms rose from 13,000 to 23,000—an increase of 77 per cent. The public's perception is that it is much worse than that, and with that goes public fear. Many people in some of our inner cities who read press accounts of gun crime or hear about it are very worried. Very often, it is criminals shooting at criminals, but that does not make them any easier or any happier. Public outrage at the increase in gun culture has increased, and there is growing demand for action.
	Gun culture when imported into this country from overseas is wholly unacceptable, but it is growing. It must be stopped, and I believe the growth, at least, can be stopped. My proposal is simple. It is that the police should have full powers, as and when they think it appropriate, to use non-invasive methods—that is, metal detectors that will detect any gun because virtually every gun is made of metal—anywhere they wish. They can intercept the guns. It is easy to do, and it is absurd that they do not have the power to do so.
	When we discussed this four years ago, I found it a little depressing that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, while welcoming the idea, said the following, which I hope is no longer the case:
	"The police are concerned that there may not be strong and sufficient partnerships within communities for condemnation of gun crime to lead to a willingness to give evidence against known carriers of guns within communities. That is linked to perhaps an absence of police confidence at present in their abilities to carry out stop and search in certain circumstances in certain areas".—[Official Report, 12/3/02; col. 699.]
	I hope that that has changed. I believe that the growth of gun crime means that there is now much more community support for this in the inner cities among the sort of people who live among the criminals who commit the crimes. They may find it difficult to denounce people or to report them, but I do not believe that they would find it in the least bit offensive, any more than any of us would, to be stopped in any street or place and frisked with a metal detector to see whether we are carrying a gun. The detection system would also pick up knives, which would be an added bonus, but that is not the object of the exercise. The object of the exercise is that when the police constable—or police officer of whatever rank is regarded as appropriate—has reason to believe that there are guns in the area, the police can mount an operation to search for them.
	Recently in London, I think under Operation Trident, a lot of progress has been made in checking people for knives at Underground stations. All I am asking is that the Bill should give the police wide powers that they could use at their discretion to use modern methods to intercept guns that may be being carried illegally—they almost certainly are being carried illegally—in public places. Given the changes that have taken place, I hope that four years after the Government pooh-poohed my idea and rejected it I shall get a more positive reaction. I beg to move.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I rise to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The real nub of the problem of gun crime is that done with illegally held guns. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing earlier that I am correct that the vast majority of gun crime is perpetrated by those who hold illegal weapons. I find that whenever there is a heinous crime involving guns, the Government immediately seem to blame legal holders of perfectly legitimate weapons. Legal owners seem to be almost persecuted by this, but a lot more can be done by the Government to stop the spread of illegally held weapons. As my noble friend said, gun crime is way up now. It frightens the whole of the community, yet the 1996 and 1997 Acts were supposed to put a stop to it. They have had the opposite effect. Last year, when we debated the banning of the Brocock pistol, which had been used in numerous murders, the Government said that they would ban the manufacture, sale and transfer of those pistols. The Gun Trade Association recommended a total ban on those pistols, but when I mentioned the word "compensation" to clear all those weapons off the street—none of them has a serial number and there are still 70,000 of them around the countryside—the Home Office threw up its hands in horror and said, "Compensation? Good Lord, no. We can't do that.". Sometimes, if there is compensation when something is banned, the ban works. I fully support my noble friend's amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My noble friend has shown admirable persistence in bringing this amendment forward for debate. He mentioned that he raised this matter in March 2002. That was a couple of months before I found myself put into my current job in home affairs. I recall taking part in a debate after that, on 29 October during consideration of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, when my noble friend tabled the same amendment. We had another debate, but on each occasion the Government did not give him a satisfactory response, so I hope the Minister will be able to give a much better reply today.
	As my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has said, firearms used for illegal purposes are the scourge of our generation. We talked earlier about the legal use of firearms, and particularly about the legal and sensible use of air weapons. Now we are considering the entirely different matter of the use of illegal firearms on our streets by criminals, often drugs and trafficking gangs, who certainly have no regard for their own trading enemies and little, if any, regard for the safety of the public on the street. So I do think that my noble friend Lord Marlesford was right to table his amendment. If the Government accept it, as I hope they will, they will have the opportunity to put on the statute book a provision that has clarity of purpose. That can only improve our current position.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I responded to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, when he moved his amendment back in 2002. I dealt with it at some length and with care and consideration. I think I congratulated him at the time on sparking what I said was an encouraging debate on this issue, for which I pay tribute to him. With his trademark consistency and persistence, he has done exactly the same again. It is of value to have a debate on these matters at reasonable intervals. I know that the noble Baroness has been involved in similar debates, too.
	I should say to the noble Lord that Ministers are often criticised for proposing measures designed to suggest that we are on the case with a particular problem rather than to have any real effect. If we were introducing this package in the way in which the noble Lord suggests, that would probably be one of the allegations made against us. I suspect that the other allegation that would be made against us would be that we need to have more proportionate and sensitive approaches to dealing with what I think we all recognise is a very real problem indeed.
	The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said that the Government reach for yet another measure with which to attack legal holders of firearms whenever there is an outrage involving a gun. That is not our approach. I suppose what governments have historically tried to do in this field is increasingly to narrow down the scope for the migration of firearms from people who hold them for entirely legitimate purposes to those who hold them for criminal purposes that can be highly dangerous and even fatal. We are part of a general trend in government for being determined to deal with the issue as precisely as we can.
	The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, started his comments by saying in essence that full powers are not available to us. We think that they are. When we debated this last, I think I gave a fairly comprehensive list of statutory references that set out how fully we thought we were already covered for the sorts of situations to which the noble Lord referred.
	Section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968 already provides police constables with a wide range of enforcement powers that tackle precisely the issue which the noble Lord raised again this evening. Police constables can require ammunition for a firearm to be handed over for examination, and can search a person and detain them for that purpose. Where a vehicle is involved, it may be searched and the person driving or in control of it can be required to stop. Furthermore, a constable may enter any place for the purpose of exercising these powers. All these things relate to firearms and firearms legislation.
	We have a very strong commitment to tackling gun crime, and we have introduced a number of measures, and not only in this Bill—we have been debating some of those measures this afternoon and this evening—which are designed to strengthen existing legislation. We are also committed to ensuring that the police have sufficient and proportionate powers to help make communities safe, and we believe that the existing legislative framework meets exactly those objectives in the most appropriate way. If that full range of powers were not available to us, this is the precisely the point at which the law enforcement agencies would be banging on our door and telling us that we had to have a certain additional measure and to put in place wide-ranging and, some might say, draconian powers for sealing off whole areas and conducting the sorts of searches which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, envisages in his proposed additions following Clause 42.
	We reject the amendment only because we think the powers are in place. This issue has been aired before in your Lordships' House. If those powers were not there and freely available to the police and other law enforcement agencies, we would fairly know about it, and I think the Association of Chief Police Officers would be campaigning volubly for the sorts of powers which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is concerned to introduce.
	On the success or otherwise of the Government's strategy, one should never be complacent about these things, but we believe that our approach, our policy and the activities of law enforcement agencies have contributed to a 3 per cent reduction in firearms offences overall in the 12 months to December 2005 compared with the previous 12 months. Happily, there has also been a 30 per cent reduction in fatalities caused by firearms. We think it more appropriate to deal with illegal firearms through intelligence-led operations, which are perhaps rather more successful than putting in place rather wide-sweeping and draconian measures such as sealing off an area, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred. Last year's Operation Bembridge, for example, resulted in the arrest of more than 200 people who had purchased firearms via the internet. Of course we will continue to use stop and search where it is right, proper, sensible and proportionate on the street and elsewhere to tackle problems associated with firearms.
	I certainly understand and support the spirit in which the noble Lord has moved his amendment, but I cannot support the amendment itself. Let us face it; the noble Lord, Lord Condon, is one of this country's most experienced former police officers. In the last debate on this issue, he said that although he understood the spirit of the amendment and accepted that it was well put, and although the debate had quite rightly illustrated concerns about gun crime, he believed that,
	"it is the view of the police service that there is an adequate menu of powers in relation to gun crime. Powers are not the real concern. The police are concerned that there may not be strong and sufficient partnerships within communities for condemnation of gun crime to lead to a willingness to give evidence against known carriers of guns within communities".—[Official Report, 12/3/02; col. 699.]
	Giving the police extra powers will not tackle that problem. We have to establish an anti-gun, anti-weapon culture in those communities. In part, that is what this Bill is about; in part, it is what the various campaigns, such as Operation Trident, are about; and, in part, it is an aspect of the targeted approach that we have seen the police adopt over the past few years in order to tackle this problem head on. We need clearly to deal with the problem at source in terms of the original supply of firearms.
	I understand the noble Lord's concern. I congratulate him on his persistence. However, it is misplaced because we have the powers that we require. As I have explained to the Committee, what the noble Lord, Lord Condon—who, one can fairly say, is close to being an expert on these matters, given the length of his service in the police and his extensive knowledge of the issue—said is probably of far greater benefit in this debate than anything that I can add.
	Lord Monson: The Minister said at the outset that the Government's policy was based on preventing guns migrating from legal holders into the hands of those who want to use them for crime. But does he agree that the overwhelming majority of gun crime is carried out with guns that were never legal in the first place in this country, and which have been smuggled in from the Continent or further afield?
	Lord Bassam of Brighton: I certainly agree with that. But my reference was in response to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. He thought that the legitimate gun-owning community in this country felt picked on because of the way in which government legislation is put forward. But that is not the case. We recognise that legitimate holders of firearms and the certificates that go with most of them act entirely responsibly most of the time. But there is an element of migration. I am sure that the noble Earl will accept that that is the case in some circumstances.
	Lord Thomas of Gresford: The considerable merit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that it is a very simple statement of powers. I have no doubt that the powers exist, but they are to be extracted from a number of legislative instruments. If the Government want to give a message—they are always giving a message about gun crime—the noble Lord's amendment gives that message straight away.
	I agree that it is a question of introducing an anti-gun strategy and culture into this country. I was recently in Trinidad, where gun crime is in a horrendous state. There is a population of about 1.5 million, and in the first three months of this year there had been 112 homicides, mostly shootings. I am sure that that is many more homicides by gun than we have in the whole of this country of 50 or 60 million people in a year. It is serious. As for those who carry guns legally in Trinidad, the Royal Gaol in Port of Spain is the only gaol that I have ever been in where I have been asked at the gate, "Can you hand over your gun please, sir?", which gives an idea of how guns are regularly carried.
	We must get away from a gun culture which permits the legal carrying of guns by people in the street, and make sure that that degree of gun crime does not occur in this country.
	Lord Marlesford: I am grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken and my noble friends for their support. The Home Office, of course, has not moved a jot. The Government say "We already have all these powers". As the noble Lord has just said, there may be a lot of powers that can be dug out to sustain particular situations, but that does not make it easy for the police and enable them to act as and when they want to. There is a certain inconsistency in saying that we have these powers and then saying, "Lord Marlesford's proposals are Draconian and we have to deal with these things proportionately and sensitively".
	Frankly, I believe that the people of this country would welcome the simple statement which I propose be put on the statute book. It would make the police fully aware that they have powers as and when they need them to seal off areas and to search for guns using non-intrusive metal detectors. It would make it extremely risky for people to carry guns illegally. The chances are that the guns would be intercepted before they could be used. Many would not therefore be used or carried. I believe that my proposal is necessary and effective. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 146A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 104.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Social Cohesion

The Earl of Dundee: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to develop the role of non-governmental organisations in establishing policies for social cohesion throughout Europe.
	My Lords, the term "social cohesion" may be rather vague and amorphous. No doubt it reflects a certain level of confidence and well-being within regions and communities. Yet there will be a variety of opinions on how it is to be recognised, and of what it really consists. Equally, there will be differing prescriptions on how, in the first place, it can be attained and consolidated.
	In my remarks on social cohesion today, I shall address a few specific aspects only. Arguably, however, those aspects are central to the aspiration of social cohesion, for within all parts of Europe they are the problems associated with young people. Such problems are neither difficult to outline nor to produce evidence for. Per capita within each state we see prison populations growing. Of those, young people represent a very high proportion. Their recidivism levels are also constantly high. Among European Union states, the United Kingdom now has almost the worst figures of all. Within all member states the common themes are lack of purpose, youth disorientation, illiteracy, drug and alcohol culture, and so on.
	Nevertheless, there is now plenty of scope for remedies by European Union states, and there are a number of strengths within the European Union. There is the current resolve to form various useful partnerships between governments and the private commercial sector in member states themselves; between governments and NGOs in those same states; between EU structural funds and both the public and private sectors of regions and communities; and between European Union structural or cohesion funds and NGOs in those areas.
	Yet, at the same time, the EU contains a number of weaknesses. Too much red tape still threatens to undermine the prospect of better results. In any case, there is as yet insufficient awareness of the relevance of partnership with NGOs and of what that can achieve; equally, there is insufficient awareness of the need for a connected approach to the problems of young people. This approach should seek to prevent them going wrong in the first place. Proper co-ordination is required with sentencing policy—more efficient designs of community sentences can evolve which may then be used by the courts, very often to replace detention. And during sentences, as well as after them, more attention should be paid to ways of reducing recidivism and engendering purpose through training and other opportunities.
	Within the above context of encouragement to improve delivery, three parts of the system are perhaps to be considered: first, designation of European Union funds to reduce poverty and increase opportunity in certain areas; secondly, partnerships to address the causes of youth problems and funds designated accordingly; thirdly, the designation of funds, both from the European Union and from national budgets, to assist social cohesion in connected ways.
	The designation of EU funds to reduce poverty and increase opportunity in certain areas is already structured. For the receipt of structural funds, current priority is given to those countries whose GNP per capita is below 90 per cent of the EU average, and which agree to follow policies leading towards economic convergence in preparation for the single currency. Nevertheless, does the Minister believe that this criterion is sufficiently flexible? Thereby, and over the next few years, will enough funds still go to countries that need it most, including some of the newer entrants, and Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, after they join?
	Next there is the question of partnerships to address the causes of youth problems. Are funds sufficiently designated? Certainly, there are encouraging signs within the UK, with more than half a million non-profit organisations and, in England and Wales, more than 6,000 new charities registered each year. There is increasing recognition that this third sector need not feel threatened by government or local government; instead, there is a growing realisation that in partnership the third sector can add considerable value to delivery; nor, just because government might have outlined a particular agenda to begin with, does it have to follow that either the independence or creativity of the third sector within partnership should become restricted. The corollary of this is that government would do well to proceed just like that, thus to form such an agenda, and then, in order to carry it out effectively, to invite partnership with the third sector.
	Within the UK and its own regions and communities, the best programme to adopt to advance social cohesion, as already suggested, is surely one to address, divert and reduce the problems associated with certain groups of young people. The Minister may say that this is already happening. To some extent, of course, it is. Government and local government now do much more than previously through partnership with the third sector. That is one thing. Yet it is quite another if government should come to form an agenda, as indicated, then invite the help of the third sector. Does the Minister agree that this method also ought to be deployed? If he does, he may also accept that it should be used in Europe as well. Again, as here in the United Kingdom, to some extent, arguably, it already is. Directly or indirectly, both the structural and cohesion funds can claim to foster partnership with NGOs. These funds may even be dispensed under the banner of social cohesion. Yet, so far, they have not been spent on focused initiatives to lessen the disruption to themselves and their communities caused by certain groups of the young. Still less, as evidenced by the intransigent pattern already mentioned, have they yielded any significant results.
	With the designation of funds, both from the European Union and from national budgets, to assist social cohesion in connected ways, there is wide scope. The aim is to advance social cohesion and evolve much better practice. Within Europe, the players may be EU funds, national governments, local authorities, regions, communities, NGOs and charities of all sizes, including very small ones, private business and even individuals. In partnership, and among these, clearly there is a huge variety of relevant combinations and permutations. Of course, up to a point this process also occurs already and always has done so. Here I declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Croatia. To assist its regions and communities, there is now much opportunity for constructive partnership of different kinds, while that country progresses towards the EU. Sometimes the potential benefits are reciprocal: I am aware of some small, useful initiatives operated jointly by parties in Scotland and Croatia. These address certain learning difficulties experienced by children and teenagers.
	Throughout Europe there are countless other examples of joint ventures which try to improve community stability in one way or another. Very often such initiatives will not be particularly expensive to fund. Quite frequently, in any case, funds will be partially available to them from the EU or from national budgets. However, the Minister may accept that within the EU and its member states there is not nearly enough encouragement of these endeavours as there should be. Correspondingly, he might agree that this focus should become much more the task of EU and national dispensations.
	NGOs should be encouraged to further social cohesion in Europe. By 2000, with civil war ended in the former Yugoslavia, and the Cold War already finished in 1989, the prospect for lasting peace in Europe had become a real one. The wider EU of 2004 also reflects Europe's new prosperity. Yet within its regions and communities, social cohesion remains inadequate. Up until now on their own, and within all states, government measures have not worked nearly well enough. However, the evidence shows that partnership with the third sector can produce far better outcomes. Such partnership should thus now become part of official delivery.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on securing this debate and raising this important and complex issue. It is important because, without developing social cohesion across the EU, there is a great danger of an even wider divide between the haves and have nots and of creating an excluded underclass across Europe. It is complex because of the widening and deepening diversity in the EU of nations, cultures, races, religions, creeds, customs and codes, as the enlargement of EU rolls forward.
	In that context, I shall raise three aspects for the Minister to consider. First, what do the Government consider to be the concepts that define social cohesion, or in fact social exclusion, in the EU which NGOs might address? Secondly, what information do the Government have currently or intend to collect on, for example, the status, composition and policy-making process of NGOs, in the context of programmes to strengthen civil society, address social exclusion and build social cohesion? Thirdly, have the Government defined how they believe NGOs can best be structured, operated and resourced to make a significant impact toward strengthening social cohesion in the EU?
	On social cohesion, your Lordships will be aware that a great deal of research has been done at the behest of the EU Commission over the years. In this regard, I make reference to the work of Atkinson and Davoudi published in the Journal of Common Market Studies in September 2000. They reported that in Commission documents throughout the 1990s, frequent reference was made to the decline in social cohesion and social solidarity, and to the need to reintegrate the socially excluded into mainstream society. However, the definition of "social exclusion" is elusive. There is a tendency to use poverty as a proxy for social exclusion, which overlooks the multidimensional nature of exclusion, particularly the importance of social and cultural relations.
	The EU Commission first identified the growth of new forms of poverty and marginalisation towards the end of the 1970s. They emerged first from rising unemployment and labour insecurity; they persisted or developed as a result of fundamental economic, technological and social changes, as the industrial society within Europe evolved. For example, unemployment in the EU rose from 14 million in 1992, to some 16.5 million by 1998. Of these about half—some 5 per cent of the working population—were long-term unemployed. The unemployment rate for young people, to which the noble Earl referred—those under 25—was more than 20 per cent. It appears that this phase of social exclusion became the justification for the EU Commission developing a social policy dimension. This resulted in a welfare regime closely associated with the European social model, which in turn was strongly linked to the notion of a social market economy.
	However, in 1994, in evidence to the Select Committee in this House investigating the Commission's poverty programme, a witness from Directorate E of DGV argued that, while combating social exclusion,
	"is implicitly and explicitly mentioned in the Maastricht Treaty and reflected the new objectives of the structural funds . . . the primary responsibility to combat social exclusion rests with the national governments of the Member States and their regional and local authorities".
	The terms "social exclusion" and "social cohesion" are widely used throughout the EU member states, but their meaning has been subject to a wide variety of interpretations. In the French case, for example, social solidarity lies at the core of the debate. Here in the United Kingdom, however, the Prime Minister argued in 1999, on page 23 of Opportunity for All, that social exclusion is,
	"a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime . . . bad health and family breakdown".
	It has been argued that in France, social exclusion is perceived as fundamental to social and economic well-being, whereas economic performance takes priority in Britain over social cohesion. When the Minister is considering where and how NGOs can best support social cohesion in the EU, it would be helpful if he could confirm which concept of social exclusion and cohesion the Government are aiming to address.
	In that context, NGOs and the civil society framework within which they function have risen up the European political agenda over the last decade or so. The increased role of civil society in governance at the EU level and the adoption of explicitly European, rather than purely national, dimensions has been part of the response to the "democratic deficit". In a contribution to that same journal, the Journal of Common Market Studies—but this time in November 2001—Professor Alex Warleigh argued that attention is increasingly being paid to NGOs as potential catalysts for change. NGOs have large supporter bases and can claim to function in alternative ways which promote social cohesion. The NGO community is not always at one with the Commission. The Commission's practice of providing funding for selected NGOs and preferring to work with EU-level umbrella organisations risks undermining the autonomy of the NGOs and their suitability as representatives of the socially excluded.
	Warleigh's work provides a key checklist to assess how well an NGO could contribute to developing social cohesion within the EU. Key factors from that list include the following, which are quite important. Does the NGO demonstrate an ability to construct policy coalitions in the EU, through a track record of collaboration with other NGOs? Does it demonstrate independence by relying only on funding from non-official sources, rather than state funds? Does it demonstrate democratic internal governance, through the participation of supporters? Is there an increasing awareness of, and engagement with, EU decision-making? Does it have the ability to be self-critical? Finally, does it have a large base of supporters willing to participate in the decision-making? Results of research into these key NGO variables and indicators in an EU context have not been particularly encouraging. On the seven factors studied that I just mentioned, NGOs were rated above average in three, below average in one, and low in the other three. There were no high ratings.
	The dangers of growing social exclusion throughout the EU are severe, and the urgent need to promote and develop social cohesion is unquestionably ever more pressing. It would, however, be optimistic to assume that the NGO community as a whole is able smoothly and rapidly to take on roles in support of, or as an alternative to, formal EU or nation-state resources. There is no doubt that some NGOs have been able to accept the challenges of operating at an EU level, but there are many others whose skills and experience could make a significant contribution to strengthening social cohesion, provided that the Government were committed to offering the support and guidance needed.
	I hope that when the Minister responds, he can give the House some guidance on exactly where the Government stand in that regard.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, that there is a democratic deficit in member states of the European Union cannot be in doubt if a measure is the low participation rates in EU elections and an increase in what can be called Euro-apathy, even in traditionally pro-European Union countries. Some commentators suggest that the EU is beginning to be viewed by citizens with apprehension, or even a degree of fear, rather than as an opportunity. I therefore thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for introducing this contemporary issue.
	What can be done about the widening gap between the EU, with its many institutions, and the citizens of Europe? First, what might be causing that alienation? For the ordinary citizen the EU is perhaps perceived as a massively rich political and bureaucratic machine that issues rules with increasing frequency, many of which are lampooned by the popular press, and which may adversely affect the individual—for example, in small businesses.
	Those with slightly closer links to the EU—those, perhaps, who apply for grants to carry out worthwhile programmes ranging from overseas aid to road improvements—may see it as a massive machine that somehow manages to delay funding commitments, sometimes for many years, resulting in the shutting-down of small NGOs that depend on timely payments. That is a subject on its own and one that I dare not examine further, for fear of intemperate language on my part.
	In acknowledging the democratic deficit, the European social platform has put forward two main ideas to try and narrow the gap. These are to provide ever more information on how the EU functions and what its actions can bring to the lives of European citizens, and to involve citizens in the active construction of a European Community. The first is clearly a top-down approach and the second a bottom-up one. I favour the latter, if only because information on its own may not be effective. Everything we have ever learnt about development tells us that unless people are actively involved to the extent of gaining some sense of ownership, the project will not endure whatever it might be. Social cohesion also requires that democracy has to be overt and manifest, in the sense that people feel that representation is fair and rules are equally applied. That is where NGOs come in. In fact, one can rightly say that for the EU to become a reality in citizens' lives it must work hand in hand with its citizens—and NGOs, the core of civil society, are the link.
	Before listing some ways in which NGOs can play a greater role, I will return to a favourite topic. Civil society organisations of whatever kind are the crucial link between any form of governance and the people. The natural tendency of policy-makers is to believe that accruing more power and control is for the good of the people. The essential balance against that tendency is the wishes of the people, as expressed through civil society organisations—whether focused on community development, free speech, watchdog activities, legal resources or the allocation of allotments. In those countries where a strong civil society has developed, such as in South Africa during the dark days of apartheid or Czechoslovakia under communist rule, there is likely to be a smoother transition to democratic reform, if only because a tradition of consultation with the people has become established along with practical lessons in what democracy actually looks like. The vacuum that inevitably opens up when there is radical political change is temporarily filled by civil society rather than by, say, nationalism. One cannot, therefore, overestimate the role of civil society in achieving and sustaining democracy.
	The recent report on the Power inquiry commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Trust rejected the usual reasons for disengagement in governance issues, such as apathy and/or an aggressive media, to conclude that political institutions have simply not kept up with the pace of social change and need to be radically reformed. The report comes up with a number of recommendations for reform; crucially, one of these is citizen-initiated legislation.
	If the European Union as it stands is to become a practising democracy on its own, it will have to open up to the people it governs. NGOs, in turn, will have to become more organised and professional by working through Europe-wide networks and lobbying with leverage on matters that affect them. There are some signs that this approach might be becoming more popularly adopted. European Union council meetings are to be open to the public, while many civil society networks are building up in Europe. Yet there is room for greater investment in these kinds of initiatives.
	The EU should set aside a small but well managed fund for NGO networks—well managed with timely payments—with particular reference to linking with relevant groups in the newly joined states and those waiting in the wings. The value of horizontal networking with exchange of views, debate and action plans on EU matters lies in being able to voice views directly and forcefully to the relevant policy-makers. The longer-term outcome would be a fruitful dialogue between the EU and civil society and a real opportunity to influence policy development. The scope of issues debated by the EU is widening all the time and would greatly benefit from views which are not normally heard. Some people have suggested that another useful action would be to increase town-twinning, which would encourage all sectors of a community to become involved on an informal basis.
	One way or another, there must be greater efforts to ensure that citizens' views become part of the agenda of a growing, but sometimes bureaucratic, inward-looking and defensive institution. At heart, the problem is one of trust or the lack of it. Citizens need to feel that they are fairly treated and that governance is to their benefit in the long term. Trust has been eroded and can be rebuilt only through honest and regular communication, and that is what civil society does best.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, some very interesting themes have been enunciated in this debate so far. I am grateful, as I am sure are others, to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who has a lot of experience in these fields, particularly with charities and young people, I believe. We are grateful for his remarks and his initiative in launching this debate. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Chidgey for what he said, particularly for his reference to focusing on NGOs in the future in a wider sense than is currently the case and how that will develop.
	There will inevitably be confusion about these matters until they become resolved later on. Another reason we look forward to the Minister's response today is that he will perhaps try to clarify some of those juxtapositions of national policy and European policy in the future. We are speaking against the backdrop of the relaunch of the so-called Lisbon mark II agenda for economic modernisation under the auspices of Wim Kok. I was glad that when it was relaunched in February 2005 the Commission repeatedly emphasised that the social background was just as important as the economic background. Those European member states, including Britain, that do not want to see the increasing, excessive Americanisation of British and other European societies, through economic processes becoming primordial to the exclusion of social factors, have a duty to their various publics—the Minister is answering for the British Government of course—to make sure that that does not happen. I may be old fashioned but, notwithstanding a long personal career in the City, finance and business, I have always believed that if society is concerned exclusively with making money and nothing else matters, as is virtually the case in the United States, apart from a few sturdy souls who keep trying despite all the pressures, society gradually disintegrates. That is when you see social exclusion, particularly among young people. They feel alienated and that if they do not have a job, it is implicitly their fault rather than down to society, circumstances and so on. I utterly reject those considerations for modern, civilised European society. The European Union and its member states have something more to offer society, particularly young society, than the rather lugubrious message of the American economic model.
	Disturbingly, the emphasis in Britain tends to be on economic activity rather than on the social part of that model. France, Germany, Italy and Spain, on the other hand, are much criticised in the Right-wing British newspapers—they tend to be more like comics than newspapers now, I am sad to say—for being weak and backward in insisting on introducing the social component in different but important ways. They can be good examples for us.
	However, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and others, raise complex matters about the future mechanisms in the European context. We have the European Social Fund and know that it is channelled through Governments in all the member states. In this country, the Department for Work and Pensions is primarily responsible for ensuring that those funds are channelled through the national Government and then dispersed in accordance with the procedures and modalities to local communities at a lower level. Should that be radically changed in the future? Is that not the right way for these relationships to continue, albeit with expanded budgets perhaps? The European Union budget—it is very virtuous because it has no deficit intrinsically, unlike national budgets, because its receipts more or less equal its payments—is very small in total, particularly for the European Social Fund, when compared with what national member governments can do. Therefore, the primary emphasis must be on what governments do and how they link with NGOs in a national sense rather than in a pan-European sense. However, the pan-European dimension presumably will develop because that has already been accepted by the Commission, with the European Council in the background, as was mentioned by previous speakers. They have accepted the notion that there will be a European level of co-ordination and of persuading national NGOs to have more national umbrella organisations. I think that it is still a very limited development—I see that my noble friend Lord Chidgey is nodding—and that a lot of work is still to be done before we reach that stage.
	I imagine, however, that the member states will wish the existing national mechanisms to persist. Within that, various ideas need to be brought into play to deal with aspects of the future that we will be handling as the years unfold. Assuming that there will be budget increases in the future, perhaps the Minister will also refer to that possibility, because the money is inevitably limited at European level.
	When President Barroso was talking about the national reform programmes last year and this year, he said:
	"Inspiration is close to home. All the Member States are bringing to the party ideas that others can adapt and adopt and I congratulate them. But progress is still uneven and the Commission will step up its effort to drive the process. This Report already shows we won't be a silent partner. We'll give credit where it's due and constructive criticism where it can help".
	He was talking primarily about the economic modernisation programmes in each member state, left substantially to private activity and private enterprise, but that can be the model for NGOs and charities in the member states and their future umbrella co-ordinating organisations in the wider European context. Will the Government encourage this when they meet other European Ministers dealing with social affairs?
	I share the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the excessive number of people in prison here, including people on remand. The figure is very high when compared with other same-population countries in the Union. I am concerned also about young people being imprisoned for longer and longer terms, as well as in the junior correction institutions, which also face a separate but no less daunting problem of increasing numbers. How will society deal with these problems in the future and make sure that those people are no longer excluded socially, economically and therefore politically to some extent—they vote less and less, as we know, in elections here and elsewhere? What can the European community do at a wider level to achieve those objectives? These are complex matters. My inclination is to say that the national mechanisms should remain as the main mechanisms for the future in terms of the channelling of money and the way in which public and taxpayers' money goes to NGOs and charities, but there should be European co-ordinating activity as well. Perhaps the Minister will explain his and the Government's proclivities in these fields when he comes to reply.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend for securing this debate. Social cohesion, or the lack of it, has a profound impact on many areas of our lives. It is clear in this country that many of the ills that beset society today, from gun crime to high incidence of disease, can be directly related to sections of society that are socially and economically excluded or disadvantaged. What is true in this country can only be more so throughout the rest of Europe. The differences in living standards between areas of the UK are nothing when compared with those across Europe. The consequences of this social divide are equally real and affect us all on a proportionally large scale.
	The unequal social and economic opportunities that exist in many of those central and eastern European countries that have recently joined the European Union have had many unfortunate consequences for our society already. We have all read the disturbing stories of women trafficked across Europe and forced into prostitution. Drug trafficking also follows similar routes. And with the recent worry over avian flu, the importance of raising health and safety standards in these countries cannot be overstated. All these problems will only get worse with the eventual accession of Bulgaria and Romania, both countries which have far lower GDPs per capita than the current EU average.
	This bleak picture is fortunately not the whole story. The enlargement of the EU has brought equal benefits to our society, from the army of hard working Europeans who are providing much needed skills in many job sectors from the service industry to the health service, to the opportunities for British industries to expand their overseas market into new countries.
	With such clear opportunities I am glad that there is an appreciation of the urgent need to address the problems. The EU structural funds and the cohesion fund are trying to do this. Of course, addressing social inequality does not come free, and available funds should be concentrated on those who need them most. Many people are fed up with their taxes being given to those who have no need of the money. For rich countries to give money to each other via the enormously costly European bureaucracy is ridiculous—countries that can afford to target social deprivation within their borders should do so. It is the countries that cannot afford it that need to be helped.
	It is, of course, not only a matter of money. We have seen enough examples of wasteful government spending in this country to see that throwing money at the problem will not solve it. We need to ensure that the money is spent effectively. As we have finally come to realise in this country, the best results are often achieved when non-governmental organisations have a significant role in the process.
	Again, what is true in this country is doubly true for Europe. Many of the recent entrants to the EU have significant problems with government waste and corruption. Again, this will be exacerbated when Bulgaria and Romania join the EU. It is therefore imperative that the European funds, which are rightly directed to improving the social and economic balance of Europe, take account of this when allocating the money to be spent.
	This is quite a challenge. The countries which need financial assistance most are also those whose third sector is the most undeveloped. European funds therefore need to be even more carefully considered to ensure that they are accessible to the organisations already in existence and to encourage the formation of new ones.
	The necessary steps are clear. One of the most useful would be, as has already been mentioned, cutting red tape and regulation. It is clear that, even in this country, excessive red tape is preventing many smaller organisations working productively with the Government. How much more true must this be in countries which have a weaker third sector than us?
	I hope that the growing appreciation of non-governmental organisations will rapidly lead to improvements in this area. The goal of a socially cohesive Europe is an achievable one. It would bring enormous benefits to society right across Europe. I can only hope that this Government play a full role in promoting this goal.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, like other noble Lords I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for initiating the debate and for his well constructed and heartfelt argument about social inclusion and exclusion in the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, accurately described the issues that we have to address as complex. Social exclusion is very complex, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, also said.
	The NGOs have a vital role to play in fostering greater social cohesion both in the United Kingdom and at EU level. Partnership with civil society helps deliver our objectives on the ground but also feeds back experience from the work into the policy-makers, challenging us to make our policies in a way that is more relevant and more effective. The EU has helped to bring peace and prosperity to millions of people but it has not been a straightforward journey. Post-war reconstruction meant economic hardship for those in the West and political repression for those in the east. The collapse of communist regimes brought freedom to millions but also a grim and disastrous war on the very borders of the European Union.
	Today we look at a united continent of 450 million people from the Atlantic to the Black Sea—the largest trading block in the world. It is essentially democratic, politically stable and has widely shared social values underpinned by historically strong economic performance. Judgments about cohesion, or the lack of it, need to start from this point. Strong European economic performance is essential if we are to continue to deliver social goals. The treaty has committed the EU to pursuing a high level of employment and social protection, the raising of standards of living and quality of life and improving social cohesion and solidarity. Twenty-five years of a single market have advanced those goals enormously.
	The 10-year Lisbon strategy was put in place in 2000. Since then we have seen 6 million new jobs created across Europe. A fundamental modernisation of social protection systems is under way throughout Europe. We have to maintain our ability to look after people when they fall sick or on hard times or are excluded, particularly the young, as the noble Earl has said. We have to look after people when they are in those difficulties. Those are the key elements of increasing social cohesion. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that we need to focus help on those who need it the most and make sure that that is where our focus is maintained.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, the Lisbon strategy has been reviewed and upgraded. It makes jobs and growth the priority for Europe. The underlying philosophy is that work remains the best route out of poverty and that it probably keeps the largest number of people out of prison and away from recidivism. It is also the best way to bind people at risk of exclusion into wider society.
	At the Hampton Court summit during the UK presidency, EU heads reached broad agreement on the future priorities for Europe's economic and social policies. The UK is responding to these new challenges and opportunities for the 21st century, as is the rest of the EU through its commitments at Hampton Court to build better universities and get more people into higher education, ensure future energy security, improve the security of Europe's citizens and develop a better analysis of the democratic shifts in Europe so that we can meet future needs. I will not go through all the others, but it is important to look at the work of many of the most successful NGOs, which have been so important in other areas on the global stage. These areas include the issue of aid; the issue of debt cancellation; the issue of the environment and reducing carbon emissions; the issue of the Doha development round, which promotes global growth and helps the poorest out of poverty.
	In all this I have no doubt that NGOs play an essential role in shaping the delivery of the Lisbon agenda, the EU's wider objectives and many other things that are socially valuable and have been mentioned in this evening's debate. Every year NGOs are involved at national and EU level in analysis of progress towards the Lisbon targets and greater social inclusion. For example, the key tool for sharing best practice and benchmarking progress on inclusion across Europe is the annual social inclusion national action plan, produced by every member state and into which the NGOs feed. More widely, the EU consults NGOs regularly, through bodies such as the European Social Forum. Before Hampton Court we hosted a social summit to solicit NGO, social partner and other stakeholder views on what should be the key economic reform priorities in Europe. NGOs such as the European Anti-Poverty Network, AGE and Caritas now have formal consultative roles in the annual spring council meeting of EU heads, which focuses on economic reform.
	Similar processes are at work in the United Kingdom. For example, we have held more than 140 workshops at which grassroots organisations and people experiencing poverty communicated their views on social inclusion in order to design a national action plan on social inclusion that meets the real needs of real people. We welcome their experience and advice. We support NGO involvement, achieved through these consultative mechanisms in the new Lisbon national reform programmes. We continue to consult widely on all aspects of national economic reform policy and delivery. Working with NGOs at every level has to be a partnership, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said. This is often the most effective way of delivering on the ground—I will return to that point in a moment—and of progressing the shared values of the NGOs and the institutions concerned. There will, of course, be examples where an alternative means of delivery is needed, but this is a question of common sense and flexibility, not of excluding the NGOs.
	I know the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has a particular and long standing involvement in Croatia and the western Balkans. I would like to give a small example of the work going on there. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is funding and working in partnership with local and international NGOs in pre-accession states to promote social inclusion. It works with organisations such as Save the Children in Serbia and Montenegro; it promotes the integration of ethnic minorities into education, with a special focus on the inclusion of Roma children. Polio International is another such project in Kosovo. By supporting the European ambitions of these countries and EU members we drive institutional economic reform, which, in its turn, promotes growth and prosperity.
	The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a number of points with which I simply agree. The third sector adds value to society and we should encourage NGOs in that role. It is also quite true that partnerships are the best way of ensuring that this happens. There is always good reason to look at structural and cohesion funding. I was asked whether the agreement on the EU budget for 2007-13, reached at the end of the UK's presidency in December, will be adequate over the next period. It foresees a sevenfold increase in the spending in new member states. They will receive structural and cohesion funding worth €174 billion over that period. Most of them believe that to be a very significant step.
	I am quite intrigued by the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, to define more of these matters. Academics are always encouraged to get into these things and I am quite tempted, but I shall resist. The Prime Minister's combination of factors was a good start. The creation of a new post, occupied by my right honourable friend Hilary Armstrong, to bind those issues together in the United Kingdom is very important. It would be a pity if the suggested checklisting system—and perhaps I am overstating the case—became in itself a source of great bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, called for cutting red tape. I think a very exhaustive system might limit NGOs in what they can do, as they try to respond to its demands. That is only because I am keen that their spirit of adventure and innovation should remain one of their liveliest characteristics.
	There are a number of definitions of social inclusion. They are relatively different in different countries; that is perfectly true. I was just looking through them. In a way, that is to be expected among the different traditions through which social policy is being developed in different European nations. I would be more than willing to enter into a debate, at least on paper or through e-mail, about how those different sorts of definitions might work.
	The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, made some very important points. First, on the question of the democratic deficit, or the gap between the EU and its citizens, I agree that we need to find new ways to allow more communication and greater transparency; that is plainly true. The discussion that will take place this coming weekend in Austria on the future of Europe is intended to address some of those issues.
	The main point that I make to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, who has raised some important points about how this hangs together, is that there is an inherent structural problem with organisations of the size of the EU, or indeed any member state. They are very big bodies, and they take a long time to turn around. They are dealing with NGOs, which have been described as ranging almost from big organisations to individuals. That is not always an easy relationship to manage, and I do not think that any of us wants to get into trying to micromanage that; I do not believe that we could do so even if we wished to. There is a structural tension, and we need the kind of intervening bodies that make it possible to ensure that NGOs are supported and their work is credible, but that they are not micromanaged, and also that they can give a proper, transparent account of the money that they have received, which makes people feel that the money have been well spent.
	We need to try to find some of these new methods, and we most certainly will try to do so. I will take serious account of the points that have been made in the debate as we try to develop those methodologies. It will probably be something of a bumpy ride; between the colossus of the EU and the smallest NGO. But it must be worth trying.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.35 pm.]

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

House again in Committee.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 147:
	Before Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
	"CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MINIMUM SENTENCES
	Schedule (Consequential amendments relating to minimum sentences) (which makes provision consequential on the provisions of this Part relating to minimum sentences) has effect."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 147, 149A and 176A deal with consequential issues arising from the provisions of Clause 24, which sets out the penalties in relation to using someone to mind a weapon. Amendment No. 147 inserts into the Bill a new clause to introduce a schedule of consequential amendments. Amendment No. 149A inserts into the Bill that schedule. The schedule contains amendments to current sentencing legislation to reflect the fact that in some cases the offence of using someone to mind a weapon will attract a minimum custodial sentence. Amendment No. 176A specifies the geographical extent of the new clause and schedule.
	These amendments are required to ensure consistency between the provisions of Clause 24 and the sentences set out in a range of other legislation. As such, they are a tidying-up exercise, and I therefore invite noble Lords, and indeed both noble Baronesses, to accept these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Supplemental provisions for Part 2]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 147A:
	Page 46, line 9, leave out "Sections 30 and 31 bind" and insert "Section 30 binds"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am feeling outnumbered. Amendments Nos. 147A and 147B are consequential following the deletion of Clause 31. They are required to tidy up the wording of the Bill and I commend them to the Chamber. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 147B to 147D:
	Page 46, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) that section,"
	Page 46, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) section 33(2)(f),"
	Page 46, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert "a primer to which section 30 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 applies and to an empty cartridge case incorporating such a primer." .
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 44 agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 149A:
	Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
	"CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MINIMUM SENTENCES

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)

1 In section 24(1B) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) (exceptions to summary trial for indictable offences of persons aged under 18), omit the "or" at the end of paragraph (a) and, at the end of paragraph (b), insert "or
	(c) section 24(3) of Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (minimum sentences in certain cases of using someone to mind a weapon) would apply if he were convicted of the offence."

Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)

2 In section 37(1A) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20) (provisions that do not prevent a court from ordering hospital admission), omit the "or" at the end of paragraph (b) and, at the end of paragraph (c), insert "or
	(d) under section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (minimum sentences in certain cases of using someone to mind a weapon),".

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)

3 (1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 36 (review of failure to impose mandatory sentence), in subsection (2)(b) omit the "or" at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) and, at the end of sub-paragraph (iii), insert "or
	(iv) under section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006."
	(3) In subsection (9) of that section, after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) the reference to section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 shall be construed as a reference to Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004;
	(ab) the reference to section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 shall be construed as a reference to paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 1 to that Act; and"

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46)

4 (1) The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 49(3) (reference or remit to children's hearing), in the exception, for the words from "the circumstances" to "1968" substitute "section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968 or section 24 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 applies".
	(3) In section 207 (detention of young offenders)—
	(a) after subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) Subsections (2) and (3) above are subject to—
	(a) section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 (minimum sentences for certain firearms offences); and
	(b) section 24(7) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (minimum sentence of detention for certain offences relating to dangerous weapons).";
	(b) after subsection (4A) insert—
	"(4B) Subsections (4) and (4A) above apply to the forming of an opinion under the enactments mentioned in subsection (3A) above as they apply to the forming of an opinion under subsection (3) above."
	(4) In section 208 (detention of children convicted on indictment), for subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) Subsection (1) above is subject to—
	(a) section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 (minimum sentences for certain firearms offences); and
	(b) section 24(8) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (minimum sentence of detention for certain offences relating to dangerous weapons)."

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)

5 In section 51A(12) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (cases in which persons aged under 18 must be sent for trial to the Crown Court), omit the "or" at the end of paragraph (a) and, at the end of paragraph (b), insert "or
	(c) section 24(3) of Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (minimum sentences in certain cases of using someone to mind a weapon) would apply if he were convicted of the offence."

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)

6 In each of—
	(a) section 12(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (power to discharge defendant except in specified cases),
	(b) section 130(2) of that Act (cases in which compensation orders may be made only in addition to, and not instead of, dealing with a convicted person in other ways), and
	(c) section 146(2) of that Act (cases in which a driving disqualification may be imposed only in addition to, and not instead of, dealing with a convicted person in other ways),
	for "or section 225, 226, 227 or 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003" substitute ", section 225, 226, 227 or 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006".
	7 (1) In section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (detention of persons under 18), in subsection (1A)(b) after "Act and" insert "for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section".
	(2) After subsection (1A) of that section insert—
	"(1B) Subsection (3) below also applies where—
	(a) a person aged under 18 is convicted on indictment of an offence under the Firearms Act 1968 that is listed in section 51A(1A)(b), (e) or (f) of that Act and was committed in respect of a firearm or ammunition specified in section 5(1)(a), (ab), (aba), (ac), (ad), (ae), (af) or (c) or section 5(1A)(a) of that Act;
	(b) the offence was committed after the commencement of section 25 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 and for the purposes of section 51A(3) of the Firearms Act 1968 at a time when he was aged 16 or over; and
	(c) the court is of the opinion mentioned in section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968.
	(1C) Subsection (3) below also applies where—
	(a) a person aged under 18 is convicted of an offence under section 23 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (using someone to mind a weapon);
	(b) section 24(3) of that Act applies (minimum sentences in certain cases); and
	(c) the court is of the opinion mentioned in section 24(5) of that Act (exceptional circumstances which justify not imposing the minimum sentence)."
	(3) In subsection (5) of that section (power to impose detention where minimum sentence provisions apply), for the words from "subsection (2)" to "that term" substitute—
	"(a) subsection (2) of section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968, or
	(b) subsection (5) of section 24 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,
	requires the imposition of a sentence of detention under this section for a term of at least the term provided for in that section, the court shall sentence the offender to be detained for such period, of at least the term so provided for".
	8 In section 164(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (interpretation of references to certain sentences), omit the "or" at the end of paragraph (b) and, at the end of paragraph (c), insert "or
	(d) under section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,".

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)

9 (1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 142(2)(c) (cases in which courts not required to have regard to purposes of sentencing), after "custodial sentences)" insert ", under section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (minimum sentences in certain cases of using someone to mind a weapon)".
	(3) In section 150 (cases in which a community order or youth community order may not be imposed), omit the "or" at the end of paragraph (c) and after that paragraph insert—
	"(ca) falls to be imposed under section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (required custodial sentence in certain cases of using someone to mind a weapon), or".
	(4) In section 152(1) (cases in which restrictions on imposing custodial sentences do not apply), for "110(2) or 111(2) of the Sentencing Act" substitute "section 110(2) or 111(2) of the Sentencing Act, under section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006".
	(5) In section 153(2) (which specifies provisions to which the rule about the length of a custodial sentence is subject), after "Sentencing Act" insert ", section 24(4) and (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006".
	(6) In section 174(3)(b) (cases in which there is no obligation to state the reasons for a custodial sentence), for "or under subsection (2) of section 110 or 111 of the Sentencing Act" substitute ", under subsection (2) of section 110 or 111 of the Sentencing Act or under section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006".
	(7) In section 291(1), after paragraph (a) (power to confine the application of section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968 to persons aged 18 or over) insert—
	"(aa) amend section 24(3)(a) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 by substituting for the word '16' the word '18',".
	(8) In section 305(4) (interpretation of references to certain sentences), after paragraph (b) insert—
	"(ba) a sentence falls to be imposed under section 24(4) or (5) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 if it is required by that provision and the court is not of the opinion there mentioned,"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Weapons, etc.: corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland]:
	[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 150A:
	Page 53, line 22, after "which" insert "section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) or"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Schedule 1 makes corresponding provision for Northern Ireland in respect of the clauses in Part 2 concerning weapons, which provide for England and Wales. These consequential amendments reflect the provisions in Part 2 and its amendments in the schedule relating to Northern Ireland. It is essential that the law on weapons is consistent across both jurisdictions, and the amendments in respect of pre-Schedule 1 and Schedule 1 will achieve that effect. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 150B to 156F:
	Page 53, line 23, after "applies (" insert "specified offensive weapons,"
	Page 53, line 32, after "which" insert "section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (specified offensive weapons) or"
	Page 54, line 26, leave out "this paragraph" and insert "paragraph 1"
	Page 55, line 2, at end insert—
	"(11) The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (N.I. 24) is amended as follows—
	(a) in Article 2(9), after "2004" insert "or paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 1 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006";
	(b) in each of —
	(i) Article 4(1) (power to discharge defendant except in specified circumstances),
	(ii) Article 10(1) (power to impose probation order except in specified cases),
	(iii) Article 13(1) (power to impose community service order except in specified cases),
	(iv) Article 15(1) (power to impose combination order except in specified circumstances),
	(v) Article 19(1) (restrictions on custodial sentences except in specified circumstances),
	(vi) Article 20(1) (length of custodial sentence), and
	(vii) Article 24(1) (power to impose custody probation order except in specified circumstances),
	after "Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004" insert "or paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 1 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006"."
	Page 55, line 20, leave out "62" and insert "62(1)"
	Page 55, line 28, leave out paragraph 4.
	Page 57, line 32, at end insert—
	"(6A) A realistic imitation firearm brought into Northern Ireland shall be liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts.
	(6B) In sub-paragraph (6A) "the customs and excise Acts" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)."
	Page 57, line 43, leave out "that does not distribute any profits it makes"
	Page 58, line 8, at end insert—
	"(f) the purposes of functions that a person has in his capacity as a person in the service of the Crown."
	Page 58, line 8, at end insert—
	"(2A) It shall also be a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 5 in respect of conduct falling within sub-paragraph (1)(d) of that paragraph to show that the conduct—
	(a) was in the course of carrying on any trade or business; and
	(b) was for the purpose of making the imitation firearm in question available to be modified in a way which would result in its ceasing to be a realistic imitation firearm."
	Page 58, line 10, after "(1)" insert "or (2A)"
	Page 60, line 26, at end insert—
	"(4A) An imitation firearm brought into Northern Ireland which does not conform to the specifications required of it by regulations under this paragraph shall be liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts.
	(4B) In sub-paragraph (4A) "the customs and excise Acts" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)."
	Page 62, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in subsection (5), (8), (9) or (11A) above if—
	(a) sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
	(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
	Page 62, leave out lines 17 to 21.
	Page 62, leave out lines 40 and 41.
	Page 62, line 45, leave out "4" and insert "5"
	Page 63, line 5, leave out from the beginning to "Article"
	Page 63, line 8, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
	Page 63, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) paragraph 6(2)(f),"
	Page 63, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 45 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Football banning orders and football-related consequential amendments]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 156G:
	Page 65, line 24, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
	"(f) his becoming aware of the loss of his travel authorisation;"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Government Amendment No. 159 to Schedule 2 makes it a condition of all banning orders that individuals subject to a banning order are required to provide details to the Football Banning Orders Authority—the FBOA—of any relevant change in personal circumstances that will make it more difficult for the enforcing authority to monitor and administer the banning order. This is to ensure that individuals subject to orders are unable to avoid, intentionally or otherwise, compliance with the conditions of their order because of a change in name, address or passport details or due to their using a previously undisclosed name.
	Amendments Nos. 156G, 158 and 162 revise the definition of a banned individual's travel documentation from "passport" to "travel authorisation". This will avoid the need to amend primary legislation in the event of any change in the current arrangements. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 157 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 158 and 159:
	Page 65, line 25, leave out "passport and the details of that passport" and insert "travel authorisation"
	Page 65, line 35, at end insert "and—
	(a) in the case of a change of a name or address or the acquisition of a temporary address, must specify the new name or address;
	(b) in the case of a first use of a previously undisclosed name, must specify that name; and
	(c) in the case of a receipt of a new travel authorisation, must give details of that travel authorisation."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 161A:
	Page 65, line 35, at end insert—
	"(2A) In subsection (3) (under which a banning order must, unless there are exceptional circumstances, impose a requirement as to the surrender of the passport of the subject) omit ", unless it appears to the court that there are exceptional circumstances,".
	(2B) Omit subsection (4) (where exceptional circumstances exist court must state in open court what they are)."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 161A, 162A and 169A would remove the court's discretion to strike out passport surrender conditions when imposing a football banning order. This simply clarifies the current law. It does not prevent individuals being made exempt from such conditions if there is an appropriate reason for them to be so.
	At present, the courts do not have discretion to remove the international element of a football banning order; nor do they have discretion to exempt a banning-order subject from the obligation to report to a designated police station during a control period when instructed to do so by the enforcing authority. However, a small number of banning-order subjects have to surrender their passports when reporting during a control period, even though they are still prohibited from travelling to matches overseas. This creates the potential for unintentional breaches arising from the banning-order subject being under the false impression that removal of the passport surrender condition also provides exemption from the reporting and prevention of travel conditions.
	The enforcing authority and the police retain the power to exempt the banning order subject to the reporting requirements. These powers are used regularly when an individual can demonstrate that he needs to travel abroad, though not to a host or transit country, for work or family reasons during the control period. The Football (Disorder) Act 2000 report to Parliament, submitted to both Houses earlier this year, revealed that since the powers came into effect 1,109 exemptions have been granted with just 12 being refused on police advice. We think that that statistic provides strong evidence that there is already ample discretion to exempt individuals when there are strong grounds for allowing a banning order subject to travel. I beg to move.

Lord Haskel: Amendment proposed, page 65, line 24, leave out paragraph (f) and insert the words as printed in the Marshalled List. Would the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, like to move Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 together?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand that we are discussing Government Amendments Nos. 161A and 162A.

Lord Haskel: So the Question is that Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 be agreed to?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: If I may assist the Deputy Chairman of Committees, we are debating Amendments Nos. 161A and 162A.

Lord Haskel: We have just been debating Amendment No. 156G.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to correct the Deputy Chairman.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: If I may join this discussion, I was listening to the Minister as he explained Amendment No. 161A because I have a particular interest in it. If the Bill had been brought forward expeditiously for the World Cup, I wonder whether it would have made a substantial difference to the provisions. I realise that there should be no problems as a result.
	My intervention may have given the Deputy Chairman of Committees the opportunity to look again at the list. I understood that the Minister was speaking to Amendment No. 161A, and I agreed to the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 162 and 162A:
	Page 66, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) In relation to times before the commencement of section 39(2) of the Identity Cards Act 2006, the references to a travel authorisation in subsections (2B) and (2C) of section 14E of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (c. 37) shall have effect as references to a passport."
	Page 66, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) Sub-paragraphs (2A) and (2B) apply—
	(a) to a banning order made after the commencement of those sub-paragraphs; and
	(b) for the purposes of any appeal falling to be determined after the commencement of those sub-paragraphs."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Sale and disposal of tickets by unauthorised persons]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 163:
	Page 47, line 8, after "section" insert—
	"(a) in paragraph (a)—
	(i) after "sell" insert "or otherwise dispose of";
	(ii) omit "by the home club or";
	(b) "

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 45 and Schedule 2 of the Bill refine and improve the football banning order legislation that was introduced in the wake of the disorder in Belgium during Euro 2000. I hope that noble Lords will have seen the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 report to Parliament, copies of which were placed in the Library in January this year. That report sets out how the measures have worked since being introduced and emphasise that they have become the cornerstone of what is proving to be a highly effective football disorder strategy.
	Clause 45(1) removes the existing time limitation on two key banning order measures. The first of these is football banning orders on complaint. They empower the police to ask the court to impose football banning orders on the basis of evidence of violence and disorder gathered at home and overseas in circumstances when no criminal conviction is possible.
	The second are the summary police powers, activated during the control period for a regulated football match played outside of England and Wales. Section 21 empowers the police to intercept—

Lord Lyell: Oh!

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, I am looking at the wrong script and, in so doing, I am holding the Committee up. This would be a terrible thing, and I apologise effusively.
	Turning to Clause 46, these amendments refine the current provisions contained in Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, covering ticket touting at football matches. Amendments Nos. 163 and 170 make it clear that any disposal of a ticket not authorised by the match organiser is a touting offence, subject to the terms and conditions of that ticket. This is to maintain public order rather than for commercial considerations. Ticket touting is a public order concern, notably in respect of domestic football matches, as it can compromise arrangements for segregating rival supporters.
	Amendment No. 164 empowers the Secretary of State to make an order by statutory instrument, designating football matches covered by ticket touting legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell: I am so glad that the Minister clarified my fears, since he was speaking about banning orders and other shocking things of which he will no doubt be aware, as I certainly am.
	However, can the Minister clarify one point for me? As he pointed out, Amendment No. 163 relates to Clause 46. Amendment No. 163 refers to page 47 of the Bill, which refers to Section 166 of the original Act. I am sure the Minister will be pleased that I have that Act beside me. So we will have to play a game of bingo tonight, looking at the three of them.
	Amendment No. 163 says:
	"in paragraph (a) . . . insert 'or otherwise dispose of'".
	First, what does this mean? Secondly, why is it included in the amendment? It is certainly nowhere in the original 1994 Act. I am sure that the Minister will say that ticket touting is a completely separate subject of policing and public order. What I want to know, however, is what on earth "or otherwise dispose of" means. Does it preclude a wicked four-letter word beginning with "g", as in "give"? If you find that you cannot go to occupy your seat, and find a young man or friend who is quite happy to do so with no financial transaction or danger, do the words "or otherwise dispose of" preclude a gift? Just in case the Minister is worried, I am not sending a Rangers man into the Celtic end; I would not be quite as mad as that at a segregated or, in England, designated match. Will those words preclude giving—for no consideration at all, to somebody who is going to cause no trouble and will be an exemplary spectator and behave—a ticket? Who is going to prove that an offence might have been committed?
	Will the Minister clarify why, after 12 years, we have "or otherwise dispose" in the amendment? I do not find it in the original Act, or any definition of it in the Bill, let alone the amendment. I would be grateful if he could clarify that for me.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is describing a situation designed to go slightly wider than simply passing over money for a ticket. It is not designed to catch me passing on my ticket to my son or any other relative. However, some ticket touts frequently offer match tickets as purportedly secondary items in a transaction, as a way of getting around the current law. In other words, you pay £100 for a green and white scarf and get your match ticket free. It has been designed to catch that sort of scam. I doubt whether it is intended to be used to capture the passing on of a ticket to a friend or relative.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: At the risk of having to admit that I have not read the original Act—unlike my noble friend, whom I commend for so doing—I am getting very puzzled. The phrase "or otherwise dispose of", if it is not in a specific context and is not defined, would cover what should be innocent circumstances. I am reminded by my noble friend Lady Seccombe that those fortunate enough to go to Wimbledon—I have been on two occasions—are invited by the authorities as they leave to place their ticket in a collection box, for use by people who want to come in that evening. That recycling of tickets is done with the assent of the authorities. I understand that there is also another privately operated system—again, not for gain, of course—as people hand out tickets outside.
	The Minister also refers to the subterfuge by ticket touts to get round the system, whereby you buy a scarf for £100 and get a free ticket. But it worries me that "or otherwise dispose of" might cover charity raffles of tickets. Although I did not read the original text of legislation—mea culpa for that—I think it would be important to know that no innocent party could be caught, given that there is no definition in the Bill of "or otherwise dispose of".

Lord Lyell: I say to the Minister, "Good try". Indeed, I was in his position in 1980, having to deal with Scottish hooliganism in the context of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. I will not tempt him tonight by asking whether this Bill applies to the lovely town of Berwick, which, as I am sure he knows, is in England, but where matches are usually played under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Football Association.
	I detected—I will be tactful and put it politely—that the Minister was doing his best. One really wants to have it absolutely clear whether a situation is innocent. The Minister said that it would be all right if it involved a brother. But if a senior policeman says he does not believe it is the case, does it put the onus of proof on a perfectly innocent ticket holder, who for some reason, such as illness or bereavement, cannot go and passes the ticket on? On whom is the burden of proof? I say to the Minister, "Nice try", but I hope that he and the Government can come up with a helpful definition of "or otherwise disposed of". I enjoyed the example of buying a green and white scarf for £100. But I declare an interest in that I obtain tickets for major sporting events and I give them to my friends as a gift. It may not necessarily be a designated match, as we find in the original Act, the Bill, and the amendment. Is that what the Minister quite beautifully called, "an innocent transaction"? But to whom is it innocent? Will I have to go to court to prove it? As the Minister explained, it seems to me that the forces of law and order, the police, can say, "We don't believe you, buster. See you in court"! Could the Minister give me some reassurance—if not tonight, then at a later stage?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think I can satisfy the noble Baroness reasonably quickly, because the reference to Wimbledon—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I should have said that I was talking about the mechanism. This covers football and its designated matches. But there could be circumstances where people would pass on their tickets. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to leave a designated match early by choice, but perhaps if they are ill they might well pass on their ticket. It has happened not a million miles from here, at Chelsea matches, before the days of Mr Abramovich.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clearly, the noble Baroness understands the legislation very well, which is good, but I want to make it clear that it applies only to football matches. We need not therefore concern ourselves with other events. Obviously terms and conditions apply because those are the conditions under which tickets are sold, but this addition to the legislation is designed to catch a scam. The police apply the law on a targeted basis and they understand the need to do that better than most.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is right to say that Berwick is in England and that English law will apply. As regards hooliganism in Scotland, because our legislation has been so effective, the Scottish authorities intend to consider incorporating the approach we have adopted into their own law. Its success to date has attracted interest far beyond our own boundaries. Although it tempts fate to say so, the legislation has stood the test of time pretty well. Looking at the statistics on hooliganism and the way in which the law has been applied more generally, we can say that we have had a fair degree of success.

Lord Lyell: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry for teasing him about Berwick and about Scottish hooligans. My conduct tends to dampen down a bit—I wear a kilt from time to time, but not out in the streets. I hope that the noble Lord can reassure me about the innocent conduct. He said it should be left to the police, but perhaps he should attend a designated match. I was lucky in that when I attended a couple of designated matches I was a guest of the organisers. When I went in, the police understood that I was about my lawful business, well protected by presidents and chairmen of the football clubs. However, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me some reassurance on innocently acquiring a ticket without breaching any rules. He said that the system has worked well for the past 12 years, so why suddenly introduce this provision tonight at this stage? I do not believe that it is as clear as he likes to think. He talks about a green and white scarf, which I will take, but perhaps he can reassure me.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought I had given the noble Lord sufficient reassurance and I apologise if I have not. If it helps him, no doubt these matters will be further expanded upon in guidance and I am willing to write to him and to others who have contributed in the debate. In those terms, I will try to clarify the position to their satisfaction.

Lord Lyell: I am grateful because it will save the time of the Chief Whip and of the House. I shall be pleased if he can write and thankful for his advice.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 164:
	Page 47, line 15, at end insert—
	"(c) in paragraph (c), for "Part I of the Football Spectators Act 1989 or which is a regulated football match for the purposes of Part II of that Act" substitute "this section by order made by the Secretary of State".
	(3A) After subsection (2) of that section insert—
	"(2A) An order under subsection (2)(c) may designate descriptions of football matches wherever played or when played at descriptions of ground or in any area specified in the order.
	(2B) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (2)(c) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	(3B) In subsection (7) of that section, in paragraph (b), omit "the home club or"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 47 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clauses 48 to 50 agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 164A:
	After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
	"POWER OF ENTRY AND SEARCH OF RELEVANT OFFENDER'S HOME ADDRESS
	(1) Before section 97 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) insert—
	"Entry and search of home address
	96B POWER OF ENTRY AND SEARCH OF RELEVANT OFFENDER'S HOME ADDRESS
	(1) If on an application made by a senior police officer of the relevant force a justice of the peace is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (2) are met in relation to any premises, he may issue a warrant authorising a constable of that force—
	(a) to enter the premises for the purpose of assessing the risks posed by the relevant offender to which the warrant relates; and
	(b) to search the premises for that purpose.
	(2) The requirements are—
	(a) that the address of each set of premises specified in the application is an address falling within subsection (3);
	(b) that the relevant offender is not one to whom subsection (4) applies;
	(c) that it is necessary for a constable to enter and search the premises for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)(a); and
	(d) that on at least two occasions a constable has sought entry to the premises in order to search them for that purpose and has been unable to obtain entry for that purpose.
	(3) An address falls within this subsection if—
	(a) it is the address which was last notified in accordance with this Part by a relevant offender to the police as his home address; or
	(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a relevant offender resides there or may regularly be found there.
	(4) This subsection applies to a relevant offender if he is—
	(a) remanded or committed to custody by order of a court;
	(b) serving a sentence of imprisonment or a term of service detention;
	(c) detained in a hospital; or
	(d) outside the United Kingdom.
	(5) A warrant issued under this section must specify the one or more sets of premises to which it relates.
	(6) The warrant may authorise the constable executing it to use reasonable force if necessary to enter and search the premises.
	(7) The warrant may authorise entry to and search of premises on more than one occasion if, on the application, the justice of the peace is satisfied that it is necessary to authorise multiple entries in order to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)(a).
	(8) Where a warrant issued under this section authorises multiple entries, the number of entries authorised may be unlimited or limited to a maximum.
	(9) In this section a reference to the relevant offender to whom the warrant relates is a reference to the relevant offender—
	(a) who has in accordance with this Part notified the police that the premises specified in the warrant are his home address; or
	(b) in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that he resides there or may regularly be found there.
	(10) In this section—
	'the relevant force' means the police force maintained for the police area in which the premises in respect of which the application is made or the warrant is issued are situated;
	'senior police officer' means a constable of the rank of superintendent or above.""
	(2) In section 136 of that Act (application of Part 2 to Northern Ireland), after subsection (7) insert—
	"(7A) References to a justice of the peace are to be read as references to a lay magistrate."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 re-enacted with considerable amendments the notification requirements on offenders convicted or cautioned for sexual offences, now commonly referred to as the sex offenders register. The notification requirements have proved to be an invaluable tool for gathering information that enables the police to monitor sex offenders and to assess the risks they pose to the community, as they are required to by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	However, we are now of the view that further powers are required to enable the police to gather all the information they need about a small but, it has to be said, determined group of offenders who, while in apparent compliance with the notification requirements, do all they can to frustrate the risk assessment process.
	This amendment will allow the police to seek a warrant from the magistrates' court to enter and search, by force if necessary, the premises of such people, be they the last home address they notified to the police in accordance with the notification requirements or other premises where there are reasonable grounds to believe they are residing or are to be regularly found, to ensure they have all the information that they require.
	I am aware that we have previously resisted efforts to introduce a similar power. In doing so, we took the view—one supported at the time by the Association of Chief Police Officers—that the power was unnecessary. But we have kept our position under review, and we are now persuaded that the measure is necessary. In reaching that decision, we have listened carefully to the views of those, such as the police, who are engaged in managing the risks posed by offenders.
	We have also followed events in Scotland closely, and I know that the Parliament there is seeking for their police a similar power, as tabled in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, following Professor Irving's recommendation in his report on managing offenders, which was commissioned as a result of the tragic murder of an eight year-old boy by a registered sex offender in 2004.
	It may be helpful if I give noble Lords an example of the problem that we seek to address. Mr X was considered by the police to be a medium-risk offender. None the less, he hampered their efforts to confirm his place of residence or perform other duties that might assist the risk assessment process. In doing so, he was aware that the police had no power to demand entry to his premises. On two occasions, the police monitored the address, and, while they discovered he was at his registered address for very limited periods, there was insufficient evidence that he was in breach of the notification requirements. Therefore, the police did not have reasonable grounds for entering or searching his property using their powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
	Subsequently, further information was received that he had been seen with a five year-old. The police attended his address and, using powers of entry and search to find the child, discovered that the offender was in possession of a computer. Despite the fact that he had denied any relationship with a child, there were lollipops, sweets and a child's bike on the premises. That information would have benefited the police in their management of the offender, had they had it much sooner. The fact that he had access to the internet and was keeping objects clearly intended to appeal to children significantly increased the risk he posed and therefore the management that he required.
	That is an example of how this power of entry and search to assess risk should assist the police in the better management of offenders by providing them with the best information available. With the information they gather, the police may decide to apply for preventative orders, which place prohibitions on the offender, and may disclose information to schools in the vicinity of which the individual is residing.
	PACE affords the police some powers of search and entry in relation to those on the sex offenders register, but clearly there are some gaps; namely, the inability to enter and search in circumstances which fall short of arousing a suspicion that an offence—either failure to comply with notification requirements or a substantive sexual offence—has been committed. The amendment seeks to fill those gaps.
	This is not a blanket power to enter the homes of registered sex offenders. The amendment states that the police will require a warrant, issued by a magistrate, to enter an offender's home and that an application must be made by a senior police officer, not below the rank of superintendent.
	In addition, a constable must have sought entry to the premises and been denied on at least two previous occasions. This will ensure that the power is used only in appropriate cases and against those offenders who, by their very actions, have displayed unwillingness to co-operate with the authorities. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 165:
	Before Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
	"LIMITATION PERIOD FOR ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
	(1) In section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders), after subsection (5) insert—
	"(5A) Nothing in this section affects the operation of section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (limitation of time in respect of informations laid or complaints made in magistrates' court)."
	(2) In Article 3 of the Anti-Social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (anti-social behaviour orders), after paragraph (4) insert—
	"(4A) Nothing in this Article affects the operation of Article 78 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (limitation of time in respect of complaints made in courts of summary jurisdiction).""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 166:
	Before Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
	"ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
	In subsection (7) of section 1 (anti-social behaviour orders) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), for "two years" substitute "three months"."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: At Second Reading, noble Lords from around the House asked whether we needed further legislation on the alcohol-related disorder provisions in Part 1. Many noble Lords suggested that existing legislation could deal with the problem adequately. A wide variety of powers are available to the courts to deal with the behaviour that the drinking banning orders seek to address. One of the key powers is surely the anti-social behaviour order, which my amendment seeks to address.
	The Government have advanced the argument that drinking banning orders are different from anti-social behaviour orders, particularly because an ASBO must be awarded for a minimum of two years, whereas drinking banning orders will have a minimum length of two months. This argument can be easily overcome by a straightforward amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as my amendment demonstrates. Why not have ASBOs of not less than three months instead of two years? If an anti-social behaviour order can prevent someone entering a certain premises, why could it not be used to prevent someone entering licensed premises and buying alcohol? An ASBO can do exactly what a drinking banning order can do, and more besides. If this is the case, why do the Government waste their time devising the new order that achieves no more than an ASBO might already do?
	Arguments which compare the consequences of breaching an anti-social behaviour order with the consequences of breaching a drinking banning order also fail to justify the new order. It is proposed that a person who is subject to a drinking banning order but who breaches that order can be found guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine. The breach of an ASBO can quite rightly result in a custodial sentence, so an ASBO is a more versatile type of order which gives the courts greater powers to ensure that its orders are enforced. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but it is the kind of argument that the Government advance time and again against many of the amendments that I move, so what is seen as sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
	The Minister might also argue that drinking banning orders can be awarded more easily and to a lesser standard of proof than that required to award an anti-social behaviour order. Well, indeed. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who made that very point on our first day in Committee. If that is the case, is the introduction of a drinking banning order really just an attempt by the Government, in the interests of expediency, to circumvent the judicial safeguards surrounding the imposition of an anti-social behaviour order? If the Government are serious about tackling the behaviour that we all agree should be tackled, have they considered the alternative of ensuring that courts have the sufficient capacity and resources to ensure that ASBOs can be awarded without delay?
	My amendment would have the hugely beneficial result of ensuring that anti-social behaviour orders could do the job that we need for a minimum of three months. We would not need drinking banning orders, and we would save a lot of paper and a lot of time, because we could remove 11 clauses from the Bill. That, I think, could do everyone a favour. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness has described very well what her amendment would do, and I do not intend to do the same.
	Anti-social behaviour orders are an important tool in addressing anti-social behaviour—something we now all appear to agree is very serious. They are preventive and offer individuals a final chance to bring their behaviour under control or face criminal penalties. ASBOs impose restrictions on the behaviour of individuals who have behaved anti-socially, and protect communities from longstanding and highly intimidating conduct. It is our belief that a minimum period of two years is right. It was established to reflect the need for the orders to bring respite to communities and to allow for an individual's behaviour to be changed. ASBOs are designed to protect the community, not to punish the perpetrator. Where behaviour improves or there is a need to amend conditions, ASBOs can be varied or discharged before the end of the two-year period with the consent of those concerned.
	However, we acknowledge that two years is a long time in the life of a younger person. We recently announced a one-year review for young people. That should provide an important safeguard in ensuring that young people are receiving the support that they need to prevent them breaching the terms of their ASBO and causing further harm to the community. Patterns of behaviour may have changed significantly in a year. This measure provides the checks and balances necessary to take account of that. On 20 December 2005, Home Office Ministers announced that they would seek to make this practice universal, subject to consultation with stakeholders and space in the parliamentary timetable.
	Anti-social behaviour orders are prompted by behaviour that needs to be controlled. Thus, the orders must be allowed to operate for a reasonable time to ensure that anti-social behaviour is not simply stopped temporarily, but is addressed in the longer term. I believe that this amendment would seriously endanger that objective. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
	Government Amendment No. 177 in this group is a consequence of earlier Amendments Nos. 18 and 165 to the drinking banning orders provisions and the new clause amending anti-social behaviour legislation. It responds to the uncertainties created by the Boorman case which was decided in November last year.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for his reply. It does not surprise me. The Government seem wedded to legislation that is new even if it will not do any particular good by extending anti-social behaviour orders. The noble Lord says that the Government believe that two years as a minimum for an anti-social behaviour order is right because the objective of an ASBO is to protect the community and not to punish the perpetrator. I think that I must have missed something on the first full day in Committee because I thought that that was the same thing that the drinking banning order was supposed to have as its objective. But if the Government are saying that it is different, it means that drinking banning orders are not to protect the community but to punish the perpetrator. I find that even stranger. It is a strange hybrid. It pretends to be a civil matter with a civil penalty, but it can have serious effects on individuals and on crime results.
	I think that this is one of those headline-grabbing Bills. My honourable friends in another place made it clear that they felt that there were better ways of approaching the Chapter 1 drinking banning orders that the Government sought. I know that they divided in another place on this amendment, and I am going to give the Committee the opportunity to show its view on the same matter. I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 166) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 46.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 167:
	Before Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
	"RECORDING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE FOR GRATIFICATION
	(1) It shall be an offence for any person intentionally to make an audio or visual recording of a criminal offence for the purpose of obtaining gratification for himself or another.
	(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I now enter the more peaceful waters of happy slapping. I hasten to say that the amendment is probing at this stage.
	Having just provided the Government the opportunity to strip this Bill of 11 clauses, I am now being more helpful by trying to put another one in. The amendment would insert a new offence of recording a criminal offence for personal gratification—otherwise known as happy slapping, if you read the Evening Standard or other such newspapers. Noble Lords will be all too aware from press reports that there has been much concern about the prevalence of a new sort of activity. People who have a ready access to a camera phone or a smart phone that takes still or video pictures use them to record a criminal event, which usually involves a group kicking, beating or sometimes raping an individual. The pictures are then transmitted to others on the basis that they can all have a good laugh at the victim and applaud the criminal. Often the pictures are posted on the internet.
	One difficult issue is that pictures may be posted on the internet with a silly tag line, so that if one goes on the internet and looks up a place name or person's name, one may find that a link comes up that looks as though it is wholly innocent, because it looks as if it is a joke, but when one goes into it, what one brings up is the footage of happy slapping. Having been warned about that, I decided to take a controlled experiment and look it up, via the BBC website—I see one or two noble Lords beginning to take an interest—as what more innocent website could there be? So, I put in "happy slapping" to see what I got. One link was, indeed, to a very serious article from Arlington, Texas, about the way that we have exported happy slapping from here to Texas—strange but true, it seems. It said that research had been done on this, and there was a link to click. When I clicked on it, what came up appeared to be an innocent linkage. I then decided that it was not necessarily a good idea to open it, just in case, as I would not want the parliamentary website being forced to track me—we do not need ID cards round here, as we are tracked by the Government—so I did not do so. What I did, through Google, was to look at what further information there was about it. Once you went into that, which most people would not bother to do, you then found it was a summary of five different camera-phone incidents that had been taken in Arlington, Texas, that showed people being given a good kicking. An innocent user of the internet could easily get into that.
	Of course, in the first instance, to take the footage is a despicable way to behave. The whole purpose behind it is not to encourage others to commit the offences, which would obviously be a conspiracy, but simply for the person, in some sick way, to enjoy what they have seen. Incidents reported in the press here have ranged from minor assaults to the killing of the Soho barman, David Morley, in a gang attack on the South Bank in London in October 2004—all recorded and circulated on mobile phones.
	It is thought that this kind of activity began in south London but I understand that it has spread, as mentioned, to America and throughout Europe. That is not an export of which we can be proud. It is time that we try to do something, and make a stand against that behaviour. Amendment No. 167 introduces a new offence that would make it illegal for any person intentionally,
	"to make an audio or visual recording of a criminal offence for the purpose of obtaining gratification for himself or another".
	I always think of the word "intentionally" when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is in his place, as his amendments always focus on that.
	I am trying to ensure there that those who record criminal events for the purposes of prosecuting the same are not caught out by my new offence. I want to protect the police and journalists who take pictures and pass them to the police, using them in a perfectly laudable way. I also want to protect quick-thinking members of the public such as those who were present at the horrendous events in London last summer and took video footage or still pictures on their cameras and handed those to the police. I am sure that those were utterly invaluable in backing up CCTV footage. I want to protect all those innocent applications and reasons for taking pictures, while trying to get at those who take pictures for a sick purpose.
	If the Minister believes that the drafting of the amendment is not effective then I am happy to look at a different one. I know that in another part of the Bill the Government have created an offence regarding firearms and then listed specific defences—people who can be excluded, by profession. If the Government feel that would be the better approach, I am happy to look at that. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Baroness has our full support on this amendment. She described the conduct as despicable: it is vicious and dangerous. It can lead to the filming of potentially fatal attacks on people, as has happened. On the question of gratification, what came into my mind when listening to the noble Baroness were the pictures taken of Iraqi detainees inside the barracks—who were, it is said, being kicked and beaten by members of the forces—and the obvious expressions of glee and delight that the person filming the scene had in doing that. Those are something with which we are all familiar. We do not even have to go to the internet to find an instance like that. To record an offence to gratify oneself in that way should be punished.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, certainly understand the concern about happy slapping. It is an awful thing. The noble Baroness referred to one case and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made reference to prisoners being abused and filmed as the abuse was being inflicted on them. It is appalling and we obviously want to try to do what we can to deal with it. I am certainly very sympathetic towards the aims of this amendment.
	That the amendment can accurately achieve what it desires is something of which I am not entirely convinced at this stage. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that it is a probing amendment. We are not sure that, even by creating a new offence, we would be proceeding in the right direction. Such an offence would set a very important legal precedent. It would effectively criminalise the observing of an offence and represent a major step in extending the scope of the criminal law. Before we do that, we need very carefully to think through all the consequences.
	The existing criminal law deals satisfactorily with the primary offence of the attack itself; for example, it could constitute an assault or a wounding. Most people who record an offence would be criminally liable, either because they, too, are committing the offence being filmed or because they were involved in the planning of the offence. They would thereby be open to charges of conspiracy, incitement or aiding and abetting. A new offence of this kind would capture only a very small group of people. That is not to say that the attempt to do so is wrong, but those people would in essence be those who embarked on that course of action with a purely malicious intent but who would perhaps not be otherwise involved or implicated.
	Moreover, where a violent offence has taken place and there is a happy-slapping element, this should be taken into account as an aggravating factor under current sentencing guidelines. So there is a way in which it can be built in. This type of offence would usually involve three elements: a degree of planning; offenders operating in groups or gangs; and additional degradation of the victim. Those sentencing must consider the combined aggravating effect. These factors would apply to all those committing the offence, not just to the person undertaking the filming.
	The noble Baroness alluded to the possibility that, with the offence being designed in the way in which she has done so, one might as an unintended consequence capture people who are attempting to provide a public service by collecting evidence, either on CCTV or through a mobile phone that makes a video recording. We would have to be very careful on that front, too.
	While we abhor the practice of happy slapping, we are not convinced that the offence proposed in this way by the amendment would tackle the problem that has been identified. However, it clearly is a problem and we certainly do not rule out giving it further consideration. For the moment, sympathetic though we are, given the magnitude of the step that we would be taking in extending the criminal law in this way, we should approach the subject with some caution and further reflection. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I would not have thought that one was extending the criminal law to a great extent. I refer noble Lords back to the prize-fighting of the 18th and 19th centuries. People who attended a prize fight could find themselves being charged with the criminal offence of encouraging the fight to take place. To the degree that photographing an incident like this encourages, that is already a criminal offence. However, something specific in modern terms—as opposed to going back to the common law—in which one expressed the offence as videoing an incident of this sort would bring it home to people much more quickly.
	The alternative would be to suggest to the Crown Prosecution Service, through the Attorney-General, that it should consider prosecuting people on the basis of encouragement and incitement when the circumstances come to light in a particular case. If there were a test case, I am sure that, having regard to the press publicity for happy slapping, that would equally bring home to people nationwide that this practice could very well be regarded as a serious criminal offence already.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support for the amendment. I made it clear that it is a probing amendment, but it is a matter which I take extremely seriously. The Minister has said that he is sympathetic to the amendment's aims but is not convinced that it achieves its objective. I made it clear that I accept that, as a first attempt, the amendment is not necessarily perfect—what amendment ever is? Between now and Report I shall talk to noble Lords to see whether there is a better way of drafting it.
	I do not think that this is a huge step to take. The Minister said that it would criminalise the observing of an offence, but it would criminalise only the observing where the person is taking a record; the actual observation itself would not be criminalised. It would be an offence if someone took a permanent record of an incident for gratification of himself or herself or another. The Government introduced the concept of gratification in the Sexual Offences Act, so the relevant definition is already available.
	The Minister said that you can take such things into account as an aggravating factor. But it is important to have clarity whereby we give out a signal that this behaviour, which is modern—as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, it reflects a modern use of cameras—is not acceptable. I shall work on this between Committee and Report, talk to noble Lords and, of course, seek the Government's advice to see whether they can make any movement on this. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 51 to 55 agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Repeals]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 168:
	Page 70, line 43, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) In section 24(1B), the "or" at the end of paragraph (a). 
			 Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20) In section 37(1A), the "or" at the end of paragraph (b)."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 168, 169, 171, 172 and 174 deal with consequential issues arising from Clause 24, which sets out the penalties in relation to using someone to mind a weapon. These amendments are minor repeals, consequential on the fact that in some instances the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon will attract a minimum custodial sentence. These amendments are required to ensure consistency between the provisions of Clause 24 and the sentences set out in other legislation. As such, they are a tidying-up exercise.
	Amendment No. 173 is a consequential issue arising from a provision of Clause 46, empowering the Secretary of State to designate football matches, by statutory instrument, for the purposes of ticket touting legislation—Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This amendment is a minor repeal, consequential on the fact that currently ticket touting legislation receives its designation from the Football Spectators Act 1989, which designates by the Football Spectators (Prescription) Order 2006. This order is primarily drafted to reflect the required designations for football banning order legislation. The aim throughout is to empower the police to act against ticket touting in circumstances where their activity increases public order risks through a breakdown in the segregation of rival fans. The motivation is not commercial. That is a matter for the DTI or the DCMS to pursue in appropriate legislation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 169 to 174:
	Page 70, line 44, column 2, at beginning insert—
	"In section 36(2)(b), the "or" at the end of sub-paragraph (ii)."
	Page 71, line 11, at end insert—
	"In section 14E— (a) in subsection (3), the words ", unless it appears to the court that there are exceptional circumstances,";(b) subsection (4).In section 19(2B)(b), the words "and the order imposes a requirement as to the surrender by him of his passport"."
	Page 71, line 20, column 2, at beginning insert—
	"In section 166— (a) in subsection (2)(a), the words "by the home club or";(b) in subsection (7)(b), the words "the home club or"."
	Page 71, line 28, column 2, at end insert—
	"In section 51A(12), the "or" at the end of paragraph (b)."
	Page 71, line 35, column 2, at beginning insert—
	"In section 164(3), the "or" at the end of paragraph (b)."
	Page 71, line 38, leave out "and 13" and insert ", 13 and 20"
	Page 72, line 4, column 2, at beginning insert—
	"In section 150, the "or" at the end of paragraph (c)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 56 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 175 to 178:
	Page 52, line 21, after "40" insert "or 41"
	Page 52, line 22, after "Wales" insert "or students at institutions in Wales that are within the further education sector"
	Page 52, leave out line 25 and insert "Section (Consequential amendments relating to minimum sentences), Schedule (Consequential amendments relating to minimum sentences), section 53 and this Part extend to the United Kingdom, except that—
	( ) the amendments or repeals specified in Schedule (Consequential amendments relating to minimum sentences) extend only so far as the enactments amended or repealed;"
	Page 52, line 34, after "1" insert "and section (Limitation period for anti-social behaviour orders)(2)"
	Page 52, line 35, leave out "50" and insert "(Power of entry and search of relevant offender's home address)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.

Monday, 22 May 2006.